











Ove ecr as ὩΣ 
AS De IH δὴ 


εὐξαστος. 





Rie 


epee pes 
ease Sony 





At τ ἄς πος 
ἄτα Ha 











an INN 
ons < 








i 
i 
᾿ 
> owe 

i 

πε 
i 

; 








Co 


Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2017 with funding from 
Getty Research Institute 


https://archive.org/details/materialsforhistOOdahl 


᾿ 


Nea 





TRANSACTIONS OF THE 
CONNECTICUT ACADEMY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES 


INCORPORATED A. Ὁ. 1799 


VOLUME 20, PAGES 4-104 








MAY, 1915 





The Materials for the 
History of Dor 


BY 


GEORGE DAHL, PH.D. 


Assistant Professor of Old Testament Literature, 
School of Religion, Yaie University 


YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS 
NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT 


1915 


SOME OF THE ABBREVIATIONS USED. 


Baed. (4): 
CLS: 
COeks 


Guér., Sam.: 


K.HLA.T.: 


O.S.: 
P.EF.Q.: 
Rs: 


S.B.0.T.: 
S.W.P.: 
Tab. Peut.: 


Baedeker, Palestine and Syria, 4th edit. 1906. 
Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum. 


E. Schrader, The Cuneiform Inscriptions and the Old 
Testament, trans. O. C, Whitehouse, 1885. 


H. V. Guerin, Description de la Palestine, II Samarie, 
1874-5. 


Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament (ed. 
Marti). 


Onomastica Sacra, ed. Lagarde; 2nd ed. 1887. 
Palestine Exploration Fund, Quarterly Statements. 


Rawlinson, The Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia, 
I—V (1861-84), ΤΥ ὦ) (1891). 


Sacred Books of the Old Testament (ed. P. Haupt). 
Survey of Western Palestine. Palestine Exploration Fund. 


Tabula Peutingeriana (ed. E. Desjardins, 1869-74). 





TABLE OF CONTENTS. 


Page 
ον Cnt χοῦ eae ree gare etc rears ge ener aoa ἣ 
“8 Name ON ee kn ee et ele Wd ew ne ees 16 
inemNigmesNapnath Dor. ke le te ee eee ee 21 
{ΝΠ Mamta eee eee sled ye vata eat 28 
MifeeGolemischei Papyrus. oh... ee ee eee 94 
ΠΟ ἢ ΠΥ ΞΕ ΤΙΣΙ Witerature. . 0... ee ee ee 39 
Dor in the Old Testament and the Apocrypha .............. 41 
The Eshmunazar Inscription and Dor...................... 58 
ice CCKGAVNERULCT.S) 5 ink ge oe ek kee eb ee eee 62 
History of Dor during the Greek, Maccabean and Roman 
ΠΟ so, 0.6 lelheg Bacanee 10a -πτ rs Ph raat es aera cer τυρὸς 65 
Tow iim ‘tine Te ian a ae ev ere eee te ere eet ree 88 
‘Wine Corin OF IDOIE ee sear iit rary irra ee rear rere νους 90 
From Claudius Iolaus to Hierocles ........0............0.. 94 
AEM ἘΠ ΞΟ ὁ WOT a λων νιν ee ee ee 102 
MPA CMMICCOOMAMINCTS τ Le ee ee π᾿ π᾿ 109 
iinvesmentodsot the Crusades .. 2... 2... oe ee ee ee 113 
PUPA DEG COSTADNELS 15 6... oo ee ee ee tas 121 
ihe Visitssot the Chevalier d’Arvieux ......../.....5....... 123 


CCIM PISICOMS Eat DOM. 4 iss feud oe OSes bags bie wie Lene chew wes 130 


ΠΝ 





΄ 


56 


° 


£. Long. 54 


΄ 


A Lat 32 40 


























ed Du tleh, 










TRONS. 


DOR AND ITS ENV 


3 _ a: 

cD OP as 
μ᾿ 

le he 


ie 
να 





FOREWORD. 


There seems to be room for a careful and critical examination 
of the sources for the history of the little-known city of Dor. 
This work presents the results of an investigation which has 
aimed to take into account all the extant literature bearing on 
the subject. So far as possible the testimony of sources has been 
carefully sifted and weighed. It is to be hoped that the evidence 
of excavations on the site of the city may sometime be available 
to increase our knowledge gained from the literary remains. 

To Professor C. C. Torrey of Yale University, my sincerest 
appreciation and most grateful thanks are due for many helpful 
suggestions and for inspiration gained through conference with 
him. I wish also to extend my thanks to Professor W. Max 
Miiller of the University of Pennsylvania for information regard- 
ing the Egyptian form, D-ira. To Professor A. T. Clay of Yale 
University I wish to acknowledge my indebtedness for assistance 
in the preparation of the chapter on ‘‘ Dor in Assyrian Literature.” 





TOPOGRAPHY OF DOR. 


Beginning at the headland of Mount Carmel, the great Maritime 
Plain of Palestine extends southwards for a distance of about one 
hundred miles. This plain naturally divides into three portions’. 
The north corner, lying between Mount Carmel and the Mediter- 
ranean, begins as a narrow pass some two hundred yards wide be- 
tween the Carmel headland and the sea, gradually broadening until 
at its southern extremity, the Crocodile River (mod. Nahr el- 
Zerka), it is eight miles wide. Its length from Carmel to the 
Zerka is nearly twenty miles. From the Crocodile River the 
second portion of the Maritime Plain, the Plain of Sharon, widen- 
ing from eight miles to twelve, rolls southward some forty-four 
miles to the Nahr Ribin and a line of low hills to the south of 
Ramleh. To the south of the Plain of Sharon, the last division, 
the Plain of Philistia, extends a distance of forty miles to the River 
of Egypt (the Wady el-‘Arish). 

In the southern part of the first of these divisions lies the village 
Tanttra, successor to the ancient city of Dor’. Tantira lies in 
northern latitude’ 32° 36’ 35”, in eastern longitude from Green- 
wich 34° 54’ 40”. The ruins of Dor, known as el-Burj or Khtirbet 
Tantira*, are located about one-half mile directly north of the 
modern town. Dor proper lies therefore in latitude 32° 36’ 50”, 
longitude 34° 54’ 40". Its distance from the headland of Carmel 
and from Haifa is about fourteen and one-half miles south. It is 
about six and one-half miles south of ‘Athlit, which was the chief 
city of the district during the Crusades*®. Caesarea’, built by 

1G.A.8., Hist. Geog., pp. 147f. 

20, R. Conder, in Hast. D.B. s.v. Dor, seems now inclined to reject 
his earlier identification of Tantira with Dor (P.E.F.Q., 1874, p. 12; S. 
W.P. Mem. Il, p. 3). The location of the town, however, agrees so well 
with the data at hand that nearly all writers accept the identification as 
practically certain. 

3 P.E.F., Map of Palestine, Sheet 7,1 j; Ptolemy (Nat. Hist. V, 15, δ) 
locates Dor in 66° 30’, 32° 40’. 

4S.W.P. Mem., Il, p. 7. 

° Then called Castellum Peregrinorum (Buhl, Geog., p. 211); P.E.F.Q. 
1874, p. 12. 

δ Anciently Στράτωνος Πύργος (G.A.S., Hist. Geog., pp. 13§ff.). 





8 George Dahl, 


Herod the Great in time to become the capital of the Roman prov- 
ince of Judea, lies eight miles south of Dor’. 

Tantira, the modern town, an unimportant village of a few hun- 
dred Moslem inhabitants’, lies along the coast. South of the vil- 
lage stretches a fine open sandy beach; northwards the shore is 
rocky as far as the Jeziret el-Mtkr*. To the east and southeast lies 
aswamp’. <A short distance to the south of the town is the Nahr 
el-Dufleh’, a stream some five to ten yards across and apparently 
perennial; still farther south, on the way to Caesarea, one crosses 
the Nahr el-Zerka, the Crocodile River of the ancients. In the 
sea, opposite the town, are several small islands; these combine 
with a slight curve in the beach to form a sort of harbor for the 
small coasting craft. On the north this little bay is protected by 
a rocky point that juts out into the sea in the form of a promon- 
tory’. North of this promontory is another ancient port; evidently 
there was here a double harbor’. The buildings of the town itself 
are for the most part mud cabins one story high, lying along the 
beach*; stones taken from the ruins to the north have been used in 
building the better houses". To the east is a square stone build- 
ing” 





1 According to the Tab. Peut. the distance from Cesaria to Thora (sic) is 
VIII (Roman miles); Eus. and Jerome (O.S, 283:3; 142:18-15) make it nine 
Roman miles. 

2 Baed. (4) (1906) p. 231; Ene. Bib. s.v.; S.W.P., Mem. II, p. 3; Buck- 
ingham (Trav. in Pal., p. 128; s0 von Raumer, Paldstina (8), p. 154, in 
1850) in 1823, estimated the population at 500 souls, with 40 or 50 dwellings; 
Guérin (Sam. 2, 305f.) in 1874 says 1200 inhabitants (but Guérin seems to 
overestimate the population of several towns in this district). According 
to the Population List of the Liva of ‘Akka (reported by G. Schumacher, 
P.ELF.Q., 1887, p. 181, no. 38) there were in 1887, 154 Moslem men between 
16 and 60 years of age; this would give an estimated total of about 770 
souls; the town at that time was growing (Ibid. p. 84). 

38.W.P. Mem. ΤΊ, p. 1; Buhl, Geog., p. 82; see map. 

4 Baed. (4), pp. 231f; Pal. Εαρὶ. Map, Sheet 7; Buhl, Geog., p. 211. 

5G.A.S., Hist. Geog., Map VI, opp. p. 879, errs in making Wady el-Duf- 
leh tributary to the Nahr el-Zerka. The Nahr el-Dufleh is also called Nahr 
el-Karajeh (S.W.P., Name Lists, p. 140). 

6 Guér., Sam. 2:305f ; P.ELF.Q., (1887), p. 84; Ibid, (1873), p. 100. 

1G.A.8.. Hist. Geog. p. 180; see page 11 below. 

8 Buhl, Geog., p. 211; S W.P. Mem. IT, p. 3. 

9 PLELF.Q., 1887, p. 84; Gueér., Sam. 2:805. 

τὸ §.W.P. Mem. I, p. 3. 


used as a meddfeh, or ‘guest house,” for passing travelers. 
. ε ’ 


History of Dor. 9 


Guérin’ mentions two mosques, both partly in ruins in his time, 
one of which contained several ancient granite columns. With the 
increasing prosperity of the town, a number of good-looking gran- 
aries have risen near the seashore’. There is a well northeast of 
the village’. Many of the inhabitants are sailors and fishermen; 
for the rest, the industries of the town are mainly agricultural and 
pastoral. In the fields to the east and the south grain is raised, 
part of which is exported in small coastwise sailing vessels*. ΑΒ is 
usually the case in Palestine, the property of the natives of Tantiira 
consists chiefly in herds of cattle and goats’. The inhabitants share 
the greedy avarice and the thieving propensities so universal in 
that land®. On the whole, Tantira is a typical Palestinian coast 
town. 

A few minutes to the north of the modern village lie scattered 
about the ruins of ancient Dor. These ruins’ consist of a mound 
covered with debris, with a fallen tower to the south; the remains 
of a double harbor and of a colonnaded building adjacent to the 
more northerly port; a large cistern now ealled El-Hannaneh; and 
an ancient causeway leading north and south to the east of the 
town. Rock-cut tombs are also to be found in the neighborhood. 

The most conspicuous object to former travellers was the ruined 
tower, visible at every point from Carmel to Caesarea, perhaps 
dating from the period of the Crusades*, which stood on a low 
rocky promontory to the south of the mound. South of this pro- 
montory, in the direction of the modern town, is a sandy beach and 

1 Sam. 2:305 f. (1874-75); the Chevalier d’Arvieux, c. 1700 (in Labat, Merk- 
wirdige Nachrichten, II. pp. 11-13), states that the inhabitants had no 
mosques; so Buckingham (Trav. in Pal., p. 123) in 1821; writers after 
Guérin (e.g., Pal. Ex. Fund. Mem., Baed., etc.) make no mention of a 
mosque. 

? Schumacher in P.#.F.Q., 1887, p. 84. 

3 S.W.P. Mem. II, p. 3. 

4 Sir C. Wilson, Picturesque Palestine, pp. 115f.; S.W.P. Mem. 11, pp. 3, 
35; P.H.F.Q., 1887, p. 84. 

5 Sir C. Wilson, ibid. — 

§ Van de Velde, Narrat. I, 333; Buckingham, Travels, p. 123; the Cheva- 
lier d’Arvieux (in Labat, Merkwiirdige Nachrichten, 111, pp. 74-82). 

1 §.W.P. Mem. II, p. 7; Guer., Sam. 2:306 ff. 

8 Murray, Handbook (1875), p. 358; Hne. Bib. s.v. Dor; S.W.P. Mem. II, 
p. 8; P.E.F.Q., 1873, pp. 99 f.—It is easily possible that most of these ruins 
are from a period later than that of the Crusades. 





10 George Dahl, 


bay. On the north the chief ruins of ancient Dor line the shore. 
A deep moat separated the tower from the town. The height of 
the tower was about 40 feet; its top was 58.8 feet above the sea- 
level. ‘The tower formed the northeast corner of a square fortress; 
the foundations of another corner tower can be seen near by. 
The whole was built of rubble and small stones, faced with well-cut 
stones about two feet six inches long and two feet high. The 
mortar was very thickly laid around the stones, and contained 
pieces of red pottery. The style and material of construction and a 
pointed arch in the east wall would seem to indicate that the tower 
was Crusading work. The foundations, however, are evidently 
much older’. On the 15th of January, 1895, the tower collapsed, 
leaving nothing of this important landmark but a heap of debris 
and the foundations®. It is safe to assume that the tower stones 
suitable for building purposes have long since been carried off to 
near-by 'Tantira or to other towns along the coast*. 

The mound, covering the site of the city itself, is about two 
hundred yards long, and comprises an area of several acres adjacent 
to the sea’. Broken masonry and fragments of glass and pottery 
cover it. Of the larger stones only a few pillar shafts remain, the 
greater part of the fallen blocks having been dug up and removed. 
The mound extends as far as the promontory on which the tower 
stands. Its flat top is about twenty to thirty feet above the level 
of the shore. On the edge of the mound near the sea, east of the 
debris of the tower, the mutilated remains of a colonnade may be 
seen. The bases and capitals are of a rude Byzantine character, 
resembling those found east of the Jordan and elsewhere, which 
are dated as of the fifth century’. The shafts are three feet in 
diameter. East of this colonnade is the moat mentioned above 
near which a number of drums of columns lie scattered about 
on the ground’. The city walls can no longer be clearly traced. 





1Guér., Sam. 2:306. 

2 Dr. G. Schumacher in P.#.F.Q., 1895, p. 113. 

3 P.E.F.Q., 1883, p. 99; ibid., 1887, p. 84. 

4 P.E.F.Q., 1873, pp. 99f; S.W.P. Mem. 11, p. 8; Guerin (Sam. 2:308) 
gives the dimensions of ancient Dor as 1200 meters long and about 670 
meters wide; this evidently includes the various ruins, graves, etc., outside 
the city proper. 

5 8.W.P. Mem. II, p. 8. 

6 Tbid.; Guér., Sam. 2:307. 


History of Dor. 11 


Like nearly all of the Syrian ports, Dor seems to have had a double 
harbor, facing north and south, whose two basins insured protec- 
tion against winds from all directions’. This is the only kind of 
port practicable along the almost harborless coast. Both Sidon and 
Tyre had double ports’. Here at Tantiira the tower promontory 
separated the two harbors. The harbor south of the promontory 
contains the ruins of artificial moles in the sea’, built to increase the 
size and security of the harbor. North of the promontory are the 
remains of a more considerable port. In the sea here is a peculiar 
scarped reef, through which a narrow passage has been cut to form 
an entrance to the harbor. Apparently this passage was curved, 
about fifty yards long with sides from eight to ten feet high. As 
at Tyre, the entrance to this passage was probably closed at one 
time by a chain or boom’. For the small boats of ancient times 
this double harbor, protected as it was by the promontory and by 
moles, offered fairly safe shelter. 

Near the shore of the northern harbor a number of columns le 
on the ground, each about one foot six inches in diameter, with 
simple square base®. The material of which these columns are 
made is the same coarse limestone as that of which the tower was 
built and is evidently taken from the quarries in the neighborhood. 
They seem to be the remains of a building close to the water, per- 
haps the temple of some maritime deity’. Just north of these 
columns there are four rock-cut tombs in the cliff’. One of these 
tombs has two loculi, the second a square chamber, and the third 
and fourth have three loculi each. 

On the north harbor shore itself are three retaining walls, the 
remains of a maritime building. The southern wall is built against 
the north face* of the promontory on which the tower formerly 





1G.A.8., Hist. Geog., p. 130. 

? F. C. Hiselen, Sidon, p. 4; Hast., D.B. s.v. Zidon and Tyre. 

3 Guér., Sam. 2:306; Murray, Handbook (1875) p, 358. 

48.W.P. Mem. 11, pp. 8, 9; Baed. (4) pp. 2381 ff. 

5 P.H.F.Q., 1874, p. 12; S.W.P. Mem. II, p. 8; Guér., Sam. 2:307. These 
columns were ten in number as reported by P. Εἰ, F. Survey and Guérin; 
doubtless some have been taken away since then. 

6 P.H.F.Q., 1874, p. 12. 

7$.W.P. Mem, 11, p. 8. 

8 P.E.F.Q., 1873, pp. 99f.; ibid., 1874, p. 12; S.W.P. Mem. 11, p. 8; Guérin 
(Sam. 2:307) describes these as the remains of two adjoining buildings. 


12 George Dahl, 


stood. The work seems to be Roman’. The walls are built of 
pertectly-shaped blocks of coarse limestone, the stones measuring 
five feet six inches in length, two feet six inches in breadth, and 
two feet two inches in height. The total height of the walls is 
about fifteen feet, the thickness six feet. The masonry is laid, like 
brickwork, in alternate courses of headers and stretchers; an excel- 
lent cement is used. North and south the original building 
measured thirty paces; the side-walls are about eleven paces in 
length, the northern projecting nearly to the water. In front of 
this building there are a number of large flat slabs of the same size 
as the stones in the walls. These formed the pavement of what 
was apparently a wharf*. In the water a small jetty is visible. 
This large building was probably for the accommodation of sailors 
and traders, used doubtless as a storehouse and a market’. 

Continuing north from this building one finds on the shore the 
debris of several buildings. There are also a couple of small bays 
protected from the west winds by small islands. In one of these 
bays a long wall juts out into the water, evidently a pier of some 
sort; on the shore is a wharf paved with large stones. These ruins 
extend beyond the limits of the mound itself, making a total shore 
line of some 1200 meters in length’. 

The ruins of El-Hannaineh*, an ancient cistern just east of the 
causeway, are connected with the town by the remains of a road. 
The cistern is built of stones measuring from two feet to three feet 
six inches in length, and is about ten paces square. The interior 
is lined with rubble coated with a hard white cement. The mortar 
behind this cement is thickly bedded and contains large pieces of 
pottery. There is a shallow round well of ashlar close to the north 
wall of the cistern. The work, resembling as it does that of the 


1 P.ELF.Q., 1873, pp. 991. 

2? At the present time, however, the level of the water is by no means 
high enough to reach this wharf. (Ritter, Die Erdkunde, XVI, West. 
Asien, p. 608). Guthe (Paldstina, p. 27) shows that even within historical 
times a change in the relative level of the Palestinian coast and the Mediter- 
ranean has taken place. He maintains that the land has gradually risen, 
while the level of the water has at the same time been sinking. 

3 Guer., Sam. 2:307; P.H.F.Q., 1874, p. 19, 

4Guer., Sam. 2:307f.; Murray (Handbook, 1875, p. 858) says one-half mile. 

5 Baed. (4), pp. 281 ff.; S.W.P. Mem. II, p. 9; P.H.F.Q., 1878, pp. 99f.; 





written xoLadt “hydraulic machine,” or ‘‘waterwheel.” 


History of Dor. 13 


walls of Caesarea, probably belongs to the twelfth or thirteenth 
century. 

The causeway’, lying east of the town and running north and 
south, is traceable here for about a quarter of a mile. This was 
the great coast highroad to Egypt; here and there, as for example 
at ‘Ayiin Heiderah, the ruts of the light chariot wheels are still 
visible on the rock. At the time when this road was in general 
use this region was doubtless covered with villages and as prosper- 
ous as any other part of Palestine. On one side of the causeway, 
just south of El-Hannaneh, there were nine’ granite columns; three 
were planted perpendicularly touching one another; south of these 
were three more, also touching; the remaining three were fallen and 
scattered about. Their diameter was one foot six inches; they 
were without base or capital, having only a simple fillet at the 
upper end of the shaft; they were partly sunk in rubbish. Inas- 
much as the arrangement of these shafts is similar to that of some 
of the milestones on Roman roads, it is quite likely that they had 
been taken from an older building and used to mark the ninth 
Roman mile from Caesarea’. 

East of this coast road and parallel to the sea stretches a rocky 
ridge, forty to fifty feet high and some three hundred yards broad’. 
This ridge, commencing in sand dunes about three miles southwest 
of Mt. Carmel, gradually increases in regularity and hardness of 
rock, until, between ‘Athlit and Tantira, it is about fifty feet 
high. Its southern limit is a few miles south of Caesarea. It 
serves to separate the narrow coast plain, about a mile wide, in 
which Dor is situated, from the inland plain to the east. The 
ridge seems to have formed a protection against hostile incursions, 
for the stone has been quarried in such manner as to leave a nar- 
row crest on the summit, which makes a protecting wall of living 
stone. In at least four places passages have been cut through the 
ridge, and show traces of having been closed by gates. Numerous 
tombs, dating probably from the early Christian centuries, have 
been cut in the ridge. 





1S.W.P. Mem. ΤΙ, p. 9; P.E.F.Q., 1874, p. 12. 

2 Whether all these columns are still in place is questionable. Probably 
part or all have been carried away. 

3 O.S., 142:18-15; 283:3, 

49.W.P. Mem. Il, p. 1; P.H.F.Q., 1878, p. 99; Gueér., Sam. 2:308; van de 
Velde, Narrat. 1:333; Buhl, Geog. des alt. Pal., p. 32. 


14 George Dahl, 


Almost directly east of ancient Dor, near the ruins called 
Dreihemeh’, is one of the rock-cut passages, leading to the plain 
to the east®. This is the most southern of the passages cut through 
the ridge. It is apparently of considerable antiquity, with rock- 
cut tombs and guard houses in the sides. The average breadth of 
the passage is fifteen feet, its height ten feet and its length about 
two hundred feet in all. Near the entrance to this cutting is a 
semi-circular apse cut into the rock*®. The radius of this apse is 
thirteen feet five inches; two steps lead up from the present floor 
to the surface of the rock. At each end and in the middle of the 
semicircle are square holes, evidently intended for pillars. The 
presence of a quarry to the west containing stones not quite broken 
out of the rock lends weight to the suggestion that the work is an 
unfinished basilica. 

The whole ridge near Dor seems to have been extensively used 
as a quarry for the ancient town. In some places considerable 
quantities of stone have been removed. Here, too, was the princi- 
pal necropolis of the city’. A large number of the tombs are still 
preserved, though all have been plundered. Some of them are 
single, while others contain a number of ‘‘kokim” or burial cham- 
bers. In many of the kokim the stone has been left higher at one 
end, to form a sort of stone pillow. 

Between the modern city and the ruins of ancient Dor there has 
been discovered a large and interesting tomb*®. It is a chamber 
fourteen and one-half feet wide by nineteen and one-half feet 
long. There are on the left five kokim, each measuring seven feet 
by three feet; at the back there are three, and at the right four. 
In the four corners of the chamber are four smaller chambers, ap- 
parently double kokim, for receiving two bodies each. The en- 
trance to the tomb is a long passage descending by steps to the 
door. The door is square, with an arch above it outside. On the 
left of the entering passage is another koka, also measuring seven 
by three feet. Bones and skulls were found in the tomb. In the 





1 Arab, Reso (diminutive form), meaning a small silver coin; Greek 
δραχμῆ. 

2 S.W.P. Mem. Il, p. 11. 

* Dr. G. Schumacher in P.H.F.Q., 1889, p. 191; is this the ‘‘ excavation 
resembling a small theater” mentioned by Murray (Handbook, 1875, p. 358) ? 

4 Gueér., Sam. 2:308. 

5 §.W.P. Mem. 11, p. 10. 


History of Dor. 15 


double corner koka at the back on the left there is a niche eighteen 
inches high and nine inches across, probably intended for a lamp. 
This tomb is of the same general type as the others found in the 
neighborhood, and apparently dates from at least as early as the 
beginning of the Christian era. 

Among the more important ruins near Dor, Dreihemeh’ deserves 
mention. It lies east of the mound, commanding the entrance to 
the rock-cut passage through the ridge’. There are here ruins of 
buildings, several columns and a number of tombs. Guérin speaks 


of an ancient well here, Bir Drimeh (83,9 ΩΣ cut in the rock, 


square in shape, and with holes dug in its side to permit one to de- 
scend to the bottom’. North of Dreihemeh lie the ruins and tombs 
of Khirbet Heiderah*. There is here a shaft ten feet deep and 
sixteen feet wide at the top, with a staircase and small recesses in 
its side. At the springs called ‘Ayiin Heiderah® there are deep 
ruts in the stone three feet, three inches apart and about six inches 
wide each, made, probably, by the carts of the Crusaders. Here 
are also tombs cut in the rocky ridge. A foot-path crosses the 
coast plain diagonally from Tantira to Kefr Lam*, a small village 
of mud hovels crowded within the walls of an ancient Crusading 
fort; the distance is about two and one-half miles. Farther north 
the village of Strafend’, a small collection of mud cabins with 
ruins to the north, stands upon the ridge. 





15,W.P. Mem. II, p. 11; Guér., Sam. 2:309. 

2 See p. 14. 

3 Guerin (Sam. 2:309) finds in the name Drimeh the Greek name Δρυμός of 
Strabo (Geog. XVI, 2:28) and Josephus (B.J.I., 13:2; Ant. XIV. 13:3), de- 
scribed as being the region adjacent to Mt. Carmel. The Greek word 
signifies ‘‘oak-coppice.” On the other hand, the form of the name as given 
by the P.E.F. (see note 1, p. 14) is Dreihemeh, apparently a diminutive 
form from the Greek dpayyu4 and denoting ‘‘a small silver coin.” It is quite 
possible that the Greek Δρυμός has in popular use been changed to Dreihe- 
meh as a form more easily understandable. 

4 8.W.P. Mem. Il, p. 30; Guér., Sam. 2:308. 

°S.W.P. Mem. Il, p. 6, 8 dn=> =‘‘declivity,” “descent,” or possibly 
“lion.” (S.W.P., Name Lists, p. 140; Lane’s Arab. Dict.) 

6 Wilson, Pict. Pal., pp. 114 ff.; S.W.P. Mem. II, p. 3. 

1S.W.P. Mem. Il, p. 4; Ritter, Die Erdkunde, XVI, p. 118. 


THE NAME DOR. 


Dor appears in the Old Testament under the two forms: IN 
and 77°. In the Eshmunazar® inscription NT is used. The 
Assyrian* inscriptions witness to the form Du-’-ru (or Du-’u-ru); 
the Egyptian Papyrus Golenischeff writes D-ira’. Among Greek 
writers A@pos and Δῶρα are the forms in which the name most fre- 
quently occurs; but Δωρά" and Aotpa’ are also found. Pliny” uses 
Doron (or Dorum), and the Tabula Peutingeriana® gives the name 
as Thora. The form Δῶρος is found mainly in the earlier writers; 
Δῶρα later becomes universal. Nevertheless Stephan of Byzantium, 
writing as late as the fifth century A. D., prefers the older form 
Adpos. The following authors give the name of this town as Adpos: 
Scylax (c. 500 B.C.), Apollodorus (ce. 140 B. C.), Alexander of 
Ephesus (c. 50 B.C.) and Charax (c. 150 A. D.)”. To this same 
category belongs Pliny’s Doron or Dorum". Δῶρα (variants Awpa 
and Awpa), the second and later of these two forms, appears in 1 
Macc. 15:11, 13, 25; it is used by Artemidorus” (c. 100 B.C.), by 
Claudius Tolaus’® (6. 50 A.D.), by Josephus, by Ptolemaus™ 
(between 127 and 151 A. D.), in the Clementine Recognitiones” 
(prob. c. 225 A.D.), by Eusebius (0. 8. © 250%), Jerome (cbid. 
115”), Mierocles"’ (6th century ?), in the list of Bishops in Le Quien’”’, 





1 Josh. 17:11; 1 Kings 4:11. 

2 Josh. 11:2; 12:23; Jdg. 1:27; 1 Chron. 7:29. 

3 Line 19; C.LS.,1, 3; Lidzbarski, Taf. IV’. 

4 TI R. 58, no. 1, rev. line 40; ibid. no. 4, line 57. 

> Miler, Asien wu. Hur., Ὁ. 888. 

61 Macc. 15:11, 13, 25. 

τ Polybius, Historiae, V : 66. 

8 Natural History, 5:17. 

9 Ed. Desjardins, Segment TX. 

10 The three last named in Steph. Byz. s.v. Δῶρος. 

Nat. Hist. 5:17. 

® Steph. Byz. s.v. Δῶρος. 

18 Tbid.; for the correct form of the name (i. 6. Iolaus), see C. Miiller, 
Fragm, Hist. Graec., 1V, 362-364. 

MV, 15:5 = Ed. Didot, V, 14:3. 

16 Clem. Recogn., IV: 1. 

16 Synecdéme, ed. Parthy, p. 48. 

τ Oriens Christianus ILI, 574 ff.—of the 5th and early 6th centuries. 


History of Dor. 17 


by Geographus Ravennas’, by Guido’, by Georgius Cyprius 
(#1000)* and on coins’. To this list must be added Polybius (V": 
Aotpa) and the Tabula Peutingeriana (‘‘ Thora”)’. First Macca- 
bees makes Awpa an indeclinable noun; usually it is treated as a 
neuter plural’; occasionally it is regarded as a feminine singular’. 

How are we to account for the variations in the Greek form of 
the name? To the Hebrew IN (or Vi) early Greek writers 
would most naturally attach the masculine ending -os, partly 
influenced perhaps by the name of the Greek hero Doros*. Thus 
the earlier Greek form of the town’s name arose. As the Aramaic 
language, however, began to supplant the Hebrew, the Aramaic 
determinative ending N—° was added to the original name, giving 
the form NWA (or NTN): The translator of 1 Maccabees was 
well acquainted with the Aramaic language and therefore used Awpa 
as an indeclinable noun. Most Greek writers, on the other hand, 
would represent this ending either asa feminine singular or a neuter 
plural form. There would naturally be no fixed rule for the accent 
of the Greek form of this Aramaic name; and, as a matter of fact, 
we find that in various writers and different manuscripts of the same 


10 


writer, the accents vary widely. Stephan of Byzantium" prefers as 
the ethnic form of the name of this town, Awpirns. This form is 
derivable from either Δῶρα or A@pos, as he proves by analogies 


drawn from the ethnics of other towns. He mentions, however, 





1 Edd. Pinder et Parthey, pp. 89, 357. 

2 Geographica, § 94. 

3 Kd. Gelzer, p. 51. 

4G. F. Hill, Coins of Phoen., pp. LX XV, 118.—Hecataeus (c. 500 B.C.) in 
Steph. Byz. 5. v. Δῶρος reads: peta δὲ ἡ πάλαι Δῶρος, viv δὲ Δῶρα καλεῖται. This 
statement in its present form can hardly be original with Hecataeus. For 
this change in the form of the name probably did not take place until 
several centuries after Hecataeus wrote. The interpolator states the fact 
as evident in his own time. 

5. Kd. Desjardins, Seg. IX. 

5 Josephus usually ; Eusebius, O.S. ©) 280:40, 283:3; the list of bishops in 
Lequien. 

τ Jos., Ant. XIII, 7:2 in several MSS.; Clem. Recog. IV:1. 

§ See Claudius Iolaus in Steph. Byz. s.v. Δῶρος. 

‘ Possibly to distinguish the proper name Dor, as ‘‘ the walled city” (see 
p. 19) from other cities to which the term ‘‘ dor” (= walled town) might be 
applied. There was besides in the later Aramaic a tendency to use the 
determinative ending freely. 

10 S,v. Δῶρος. 

TRANS. CONN. ACAD., Vol. XX. 2 1915, 


18 George Dahl, 


the use by Pausanius of the ethnic Δωριεῖς, the plural of Δωριεύς, as 
though built on a form Δώριον. On coins of Dor’ the forms 
AOPITON and AQPEITON are found, corresponding to the forms 
Awpitys and Δωρειτης. ‘Thus we have witnesses for two forms of the 
ethnic, viz.: Awpirns (or Δωρείτης)" and Δωριεύς; of these the former 
is the better attested. 

The variation in the middle consonant in the Hebrew name Dor 
finds its parallel in the’case of En-dor. For in 1 Sam. 28:7 En-dor 
is written WT PP; but in Ps. 83:11 the form ἽΝ PY appears’. 
In the name of the town Hammath-dor of Josh. 21:32 we have 
the form NJ. The transliteration of all these names in the 
Greek Old Testament throws no light upon the question as to what 
was originally the middle consonant’. Nor does the single occur- 
rence of the name in Egyptian documents furnish any information 
in this regard*®. But the use of the form JNJ in the Eshmunazar 
inscription and of Du-’-ru (or Du-’u-ru) in the Assyrian inscrip- 
tions’ indicates that "Aleph was originally the middle consonant. 
NT is doubtless, therefore, the older writing of the name. Both 
forms are, however, correct. In the Hebrew language ’Aleph in 
many cases early lost its consonantal value. The Biblical writers 
were therefore at liberty to write either "NS or ete 

What does the word Dor mean? Greek writers regarded the 
Palestinian coast cities as Greek settlements; this is indicated by 
the legends they give of the founding of these towns’. Oftentimes 
basing their statements on mere chance resemblances in names, 
they represent Greek gods or heroes as founders and thus surround 





1 Hill, pp. LXXV, 113-118. The form AQPIPITQN on one coin is due to 
dittography. 

> Δωρεΐτης is the same as Δωρίτης, either εἰ or ἐ having been used formerly 
to represent the sound 1. 

3 Another slight modification in the writing occurs in the ra} Py of 


Josh. 17:11. The town Endor, however, probably does not belong here. 
See below, pp. 51f. 

4 The Peshitto version writes the name §¢9. This may represent either of 
the Hebrew forms. 

> Prof. W. Max Miller informs me that the Egyptian form D-ira (better 
Da-ira) of the Papyrus Golenischeff does not show the ’Aleph. In this 
form, furthermore, the vowels are worthless. 

ὁ See pp. 991. 

τ Steph. Byz., passim; Schiir., G.J.V., 2:55, 56. 














History of Dor. 19 


the cities with the nimbus of ancient Greek origin. The name Dor 
is accounted for by this word-play method. Claudius Iolaus’ 
declares: καί τινες ἱστοροῦσι Δῶρον τὸν Ποσειδῶνος οἰκιστὴν αὐτῆς γεγονέναι. 
Evidently this is mere legend, invented to explain the name, and 
has no basis beyond verbal similarity’. 

The Hebrew “ means ordinarily ‘‘ period”, ‘‘ generation”. 
In the verse Isaiah 38:12, however, it is translated ‘‘ dwelling ”’, or 
‘‘habitation”*. In Ps. 84:11 the corresponding verb J signifies 
“‘to dwell”. The Hebrew noun is evidently related to that 
other Hebrew noun “iJ, ‘‘circle” or ‘‘ ball”. The Hebrew nouns 


and verb are doubtless connected with the Arabic verb lo, to 
“move ina circle”, ‘‘go about”, ‘‘surround”. From this root is 


Cue 
derived the Arabic noun lo ‘‘house”’, ‘‘ group of buildings around 


Sg 


- 


a court”, related to ))9 “circle”, *‘ circuit”. 

The Assyrian sign for Du-ru is borrowed from the Sumerian, 
where it is given the value ΒΑ. Du-ru signifies ‘‘wall” or 
*¢fence”, and then ‘‘rampart” or a ‘‘ place or fortress surrounded 
with a rampart”*. It is a common and early Babylonian place 
name’. Apparently the name Du-ru is related to the Hebrew Vi 


and \j"J and to the Arabic ho, sf and 3° *. In all these forms 
there is the idea of something round, a circle, hence in the case of 
the nouns, a court, or a surrounding wall, a fortress or place sur- 
rounded by a wall’. A common Semitic root "J with the idea of 





1 Steph. Byz. s.v. Δῶρος ; Miller, Fragm. hist. graec. VI, 363. 

2 So Schiir., loc. cit.; Guér., Sam. 2:310. 

3 Brown, Driver and Briggs, Heb. Lew., s.v. 

4 Ibid.; Marti on the passage. 

5 Strassmeier, Assyr. und Akkad. Worter of Cun. Inscr. of West. Asia, 
vol. II, no. 2107; Ungnad in Beitr. z. Assyr., vol. VI, Heft 3, pp. 27, 28; 
Delitzsch, Handworterbuch. 

6 Muss-Arnolt, Dict. of Assyr. Lang.; Delitzsch, Handworterbuch ; C.O.T. 
on Dan. 3:1; ibid. II, 224; Clay, Amurru, p. 130. 

70,0.T. on Dan. 3:1; Marti on Dan. 3:1. 

8 In the Aramaic of the Talmud, etc., we have the form NWT (32 ; 1555), 


from 9°], ‘‘to dwell” with the meaning ‘“‘village” or ‘‘town”. This 
word likewise has the idea of something round (Levy, Neuhebr. Worter- 
buch) and goes back to the same root as these other forms. 

9 From the idea of a surrounding wall comes the meaning ‘‘ court” and 
then ‘‘ dwelling”, as in the Hebrew. 


20 George Dahl, 


‘*moving in a circle,” ‘‘ surrounding,” etc., is doubtless the basis 
of the Hebrew, Arabic and Babylonian forms. The name Dor 
undoubtedly antedates the Hebrew occupation of Palestine’. The 
same element ‘dor’ occurs also in the town names ‘‘ Endor” and 
‘¢ Hammoth-Dor’*. Evidently the name Dor in Palestine is the 
same word as the Babylonian Du-ru, and like it signifies eventually 
‘a place or fortress surrounded by a wall or rampart””®. 





1 Tt was not untila late period that the Hebrews secured possession of 
Dor (Josh, 17:11, 19). They certainly did not give the name to the city. 

> At the present time (see S.W.P. Mem. II, 294) there is a small village 
Diarah about ten miles due east from Bethel, i. e., northeast from Jerusa- 
lem. Probably this name ought to be added to the list of Palestinian names 
containing the element ‘ dor’. 

3 Prof. Fritz Hommel (Grundriss, pp. 27f.) propounds the ingenious but 
far-fetched theory that the name Dor is derived from the name Teucri ; 
these were, he holds, among the sea-peoples who invaded Palestine c. 1300 
B.C. But it is only by doing violence to the laws of etymology that he can 
obtain even the most insecure foothold for his hypothesis. The mere state- 
ment of the equation he must make is enough to rule out his theory from 
the realm of probabilities. This is the equation : Dor = Do’or = Dokor = 
Takkar = Zakkalt = Teucri. A far cry from Dor to Teucri! Hitzig (2hil- 
istéier, pp. 185 ff.; cf. Schenkel, Bib. Lex. s.v. Dor) compares Dor with 
Endor lying on thesame parallel, and propounds the theory that the names 
are Indogermanic and given by the Philistine settlers. Dor then would 
mean ‘‘pass”, ‘‘entrance”, ‘‘door”. Endor would be ‘‘the other” Dor. 
The two would resemble the front and rear doors of a house. This theory 
is too refined and lacks support. The town doubtless had the name Dor 
long before the Philistine invasion. MHitzig’s derivation of Dor from the 
Sanskrit dvar is improbable. 








THE NAME NAPHATH DOR. 


The Old Testament seems to distinguish between Dor and 
Naphath (or Naphoth) Dor. Whereas in Judg. 1:27 and in 1 
Chron, 7:29 the simpler form ‘‘Dor” alone is used, the other 
passages employ the compound name. Thus, in Josh. 11:2 the 
name is given as Ἵ [132 and in 1 Kings 4:11as INT ODI. In 
Josh. 12:23 the reference is to VJ nai? "3; here the two names 
are clearly distinct the one from the other. In the obscure phrase, 
nai nw’, of Josh. 17:11 (end) it is probable that D377 (the 
feos of the word is corrupt) has reference to the τ. NTT. 

The most likely explanation of the meaning of the word 93 is 
the one which connects it with the old Semitic root 2, ““ἴο be 
high”. Thus in Arabic the verb is used for that which is ‘‘ long and 
high” (25), Jl [ὁ] eds 3s), and we find Yanif (also written 
Yanifa, Tanif, etc.) as the ancient proper name of a mountainous 
region in North Arabia; see Yaqit s.v. Similarly the fourth stem 


8.» 

participle, Rar , signifies ‘“‘high”’, ‘‘ lofty”, and is used especially 
of buildings or mountains, also as the proper name of a mountainous 
district, a lofty fortress, and the like. The word for the oyertop- 


- 


: Shs : 
ping hump of a camel, 92, comes from this root; as does also the 


Sue 


form 843, ‘‘surplus”, used in the sense of ‘‘over and above” 


Cp. also Ksla3, ‘*His Eminence”, used as the title of cardinals’. 


In the Hebrew* the original meaning, ‘‘ be high”, seems to have 
been retained in the 3 7)’, ‘beautiful in elevation”, of Psalm 
48:3°. Parallel with this meaning, however, and almost entirely 
supplanting it, arose the use of the verb, principally in the Hiphil, 
to mean ‘‘move to and fro”, ‘‘ brandish”. Doubtless this signifi- 
cation of the root arose from the fact that the brandished object, 





1 See the discussion of the passage on pp. 45 ff. 
2 Dozy, Supplément aux Dictionnaires Arabes, 738. 
3 B.D.B., Heb. Lex., 1, 11 I - 


4So Engl. Rev. Version, Briggs, Baethgen, Duhm (who connects it with 
καλλιοκολώνη = Fair-hill). Wellhausen, however, characterizes the word as 
“‘suspicious ”, having ‘‘no appropriate meaning which can be established ”’. 


22 George Dahl, 


whether spear or offering, was held on high in the act of brandish- 
ing or waving it. Related to the sense of the verb is the meaning 
of the noun JDJ, “sieve”, which is a ‘* brandishing instrument”, 
being held high and waved to and fro. Thus in the Hebrew two 
distinct meanings of the root 3 developed together, one contain- 
ing the idea of height, the other that of brandishing. 

In the Aramaic’ the verb comes to mean ‘‘ wave, blow, fan”, 
corresponding to the ‘‘brandish” of the Hebrew. The Aramaic 
noun V3 denotes ‘‘tree-top” ‘‘ bough”. There is here an evident 
fusion of the two meanings of the Hebrew, for the ideas of height 
and moving to and fro are both applicable to the top branches of a 
tree. But of the noun 3 in the direct sense of ‘‘ height” we find 
no trace in the Aramaic language. 

The Syriac +?) has in like manner partially obscured the direct 
sense of ‘‘height,” though it has retained suggestions of the idea. 
Thus in the Syriac of Ex. 20:25; Deut. 23:26, etc., the Afel of 
the verb signifies ‘‘lift up”. The Ethpeel is used in the sense ‘‘to 
be brandished”. The Ettafal form is evidently to be interpreted 
with the idea of elevation in the passage*: ‘‘The hammers of the 
Evil One, which were lifted up (#2«322l) against them, did not 
shatter them”. Brockelmann also cites P. Lagarde’s Analecta 
Syriaca 2:146, 24 for the use of the Ettafal to mean ‘‘surrexit ” 


(rose)*. The noun jee} has among other meanings that of ‘‘nutus 
manus”. ‘This beckoning with the hand is a motion evidently con- 
nected with the verb idea ‘‘to brandish”. All this evidence shows 
that the Syriac has partially retained the idea of ‘‘height” origi- 
nally contained in the word. 

From the foregoing discussion it is evident that the primitive 
sense of the root V4 contained in the Arabic, viz., ‘‘ be high”, has 
been partially retained in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Syriac. In the 
North Semitic dialect used at Dor, however, this original signifi- 
cance of the root seems to have been preserved, at least so far as 
the name of the heights inland from the coast city is concerned. 
A feminine nominal form m2 from the middle weak root V4 





1 Levy, Neuhebr. u. Chald. Worterbuch. 

2 Ephraemi Syri (Overbeck), 115, 19 f. 

ὅ1 have not the volume at hand to verify this reference. Payne Smith 
has failed to mention this passage. 

4B.D.B., Heb. Lex., p. 682. 








History of Dor. 23 


would seem to be the basis for the construct singular form 7782) and 
for the construct plural ΓῚ32 ". he reference in the passages cited 
would then be to the ‘‘ height” or ‘‘heights” of Dor’, probably in 
the hilly and rolling country east of the town proper’. The pres- 
ence of guard houses cut in the sides of the passage through the 
ridge near Dreihemeh* would indicate that a garrison was kept 
there. Without doubt the strategic heights behind the city were 
also fortified; in connection with this outpost of the harbor town a 
settlement would naturally grow up*®. To this settlement on the 
heights, and to the district in which it lay, the name INF 82 
seems to have been given. The use of the name in the Old Testa- 
ment, and the occurrence of the plural ΓΒ), suggest that ἃ con- 
siderable territory was included in the term. In the Dp 7 Ὀδὼ 
(=‘‘ High Heavens”) district of Sidon, referred to on the stones of 
the temple of EsSmiin excavated near that city, there seems to be a 
sort of parallel to the term INT MH). This ‘‘ High Heavens” of 
the Sidonian inscription seems to be the designation of a district or 
suburb of the city located, like Naphath Dor, in the hilly region to 
the East’. The existence of a town on the mainland at Tyre, called 
IlaAairvpos’, and the presence of similar off-shoots from the city 
proper in the case of many of the coast towns, add strong contirma- 
tion to our explanation of the origin of the name Naphath Dor. 
Opposed to this interpretation of the name is Symmachus’* ren- 
dering of DJ as ἡ παραλία. In Joshua 11:2 he renders WF [1522] 





1 The long vowel τ in the first syllable of the construct indicates that the 
root of the noun is middle weak ; cf. [A(N)9 in B.D.B., p..928. For 93 


see below. 

2 A.R.V., “height”; A,V., ‘‘region, coast, border, country”. G.A.S. 
(Hist. Geog., p. 654) defines the word as ‘‘ elevation, raised land”. 

’ Ges., Thes., 331 says: ‘‘ Excelsum fortasse promontorium”. ‘* Promon- 
torium” is improbable, especially in view of the fas-55 of 1 Kings 4:11, 
which implies a larger area than the slight promontory at Dor. The 
Carmel promontory would scarcely be referred to in that passage. 

4 See page 14. 

> The ruins of Dreihemeh itself prove that such suburbs of Dor actually 
existed. 

°C. C. Torrey in Jour. Am. Orient. Soc. XXIII, pp. 164 ff.; Cp. XXIV, p. 
215 ; XXIX, pp. 192f.; Hiselen, Sidon, pp. 144 f. 

1 Hast., D.B.,s.v. Tyre; πο. Bib. s.v. 

SF, Field, Origenis Hexapla, in locis. 


24 George Dahl, 


Ὁ as καὶ εἰς τὴν παραλίαν Awp ἀπὸ δυσμῶν. Similarly he translates 
WI MDIP ΤΙ of Josh. 12:23, (Δωρ) τῆς παραλίας; and ΤΙ) 
np of Josh. 17:11 is interpreted, καὶ αἱ τρεῖς παραλίαι. Where 
did Symmachus get his 7 παραλία Ὁ In ἃ comparison of the Hebrew 
and old Greek texts of Josh. 11:2, 3 a possible answer is to be 
found’, The OD) (‘‘on the West”) of these verses is inexactly_ 
rendered in the Greek both times as εἰς τοὺς παραλίους, This phrase 
in verse 2 immediately follows Ναφεθδὼωρ (B, φεναεδδώρ). It may be 
that Symmachus’ εἰς τὴν παραλίαν immediately preceding Dor was 
suggested to him by the almost equivalent εἰς “τοὺς παραλίους imme- 
diately following Dor in the old Greek. That he may have been 
influenced by the Greek in this manner is shown to be quite possi- 
ble by his procedure in verse 3. Here he follows the example of 
the Greek in disregarding the Ἷ of the NT) and reads: καὶ ἀπὸ 
δυσμῶν τὸν “Apoppaiov. It seems quite possible, therefore, that we 
owe Symmachus’ mistranslation of FJ as ἡ παραλία to the inaccu- 
rate rendering of D3 by the Greek. [Ὁ is also possible that Sym- 
machus was influenced in his rendering by the fact that the Dor 
known in his day was actually situated ἐν τῇ παραλίᾳ. In any case he 
is apparently the first to propound the theory that the name means 
παραλία, and stands almost alone in his interpretation. The proba- 
bility remains that the name HJ does not refer to the coast town, 
but to the strategically far more important heights above the 
town. With this hypothesis the form of the name agrees. 

In all the versions and translations the name HJ seems to have 
proved a stumbling-block. The Vulgate, with a different render- 
ing each time the name occurs, is completely at a loss. In Josh. 
11:2 it reads ‘‘in regionibus Dor iuxta mare’; in Josh. 12: 23, ‘‘et 
provinciae Dor”; in Josh. 17:11, ‘‘et tertia pars urbis Napheth” ; 
and in 1 Kings 4:11, ‘‘omnis Mephat Dor”. The Targum* evi- 
dently comes from the same source as Jerome’s Vulgate renderings 
‘‘regionibus” and ‘‘ provinciae”, for it represents ΠΩ in Josh. 
11:2; 12:23 and 1 Kings 4:11 by the construct plural 559 





' For the Hebrew and Greek texts see the discussion of the passage on pp. 
41 ff. 
2 Like the Greek the Latin here fails to understand the phrase 9%). 


5 Walton’s Polygiot. 








History of Dor. 25 


(= Bezirk, Kreis’); in Josh. 17:11 the absolute p75 NON 
occurs. This native Jewish tradition cannot be relied upon in its 
interpretation of the meaning of the word Naphath; it is valuable, 
however, in that it indicates that 53 must signify a district 
(‘‘ Bezirk, Kreis”) adjoining Dor. 

In the Peshitto of Joshua 11:2; 12:23; 1 Kings 4:11 the name 
is reproduced with no attempt at interpretation as sep Dad, The 
form 423 represents a Hebrew segholate noun. But froma middle 
weak root ἢ} no such segholate form is permissible. The penulti- 
mate vowel of ΓΞ); construct I: must of necessity be long and 
its omission in the Syriac is therefore incorrect. It is quite proba- 
ble that the Septuagint renderings Ναφεθδωρ, Ναφεδδωρ, Ναφεδωρ, 
Ναῴφεθα, Pevveddup, etc. (with ε in the second syllable)* with good 
reason suggested to the Syriac punctuator® that the form was 
a Hebrew segholate noun of the qatl type. Hence he used the 
equivalent Syriac form τοί". 

In its <9] Mee in Joshua 17:11, the Peshitto departs from pre- 
cedent in regard to the word Naphath, in that an attempt is made 
to translate the troublesome ΓΞ2Π ne>v of that verse. The 
numeral ‘‘ three” before [D3 must have seemed to demand a 
rendering of the noun. ‘This <0] is the plural of IDw2y which 


is defined® as meaning primarily ‘‘angulus”; metaphorically it may 





1Levy, Neuhebr. αι. Chald. Worterbuch, s.v.; Daiman, Aram. u. Neuhebr. 
Worterbuch. 

* It appears that the «in the second syllable was the vowel used by the 
Greek translator to indicate the short construct vowel = of HJ. Com- 
pare the rendering Ραμεθ (L) for “Δ of Josh. 19: 26—see also Josh, 19:8.— 


Only in Νεφαδδωρ of I Kings 4:11 (A) do we find a in the second syllable. 

3 It is quite certain that the Syriac translator or translators also used the 
Greek for comparison. Inasmuch as the Hebrew text was unpointed, it 
was quite natural for the punctuator to adopt in case of doubt the vowels 
supplied by the Greek. 

4In Payne Smith’s Thesaurus Syriacus 3992.21 is not given at all. This 
omission should be supplied, and the word listed under both 421 and +201 , 
with the observation that the Syriac punctuation is due to a mistake.— 
Another evident oversight in Payne Smith is the omission of any reference 
to the town name 569. 

> Payne Smith, Thes. Syr. I, Col. 1098, under root te}. 


26 George Dahl, 


signify ‘‘plagae caeli”, and is used ‘‘de 7 terrae zonis sive clima- 
tibus”’; the word is also employed in the sense of ‘‘ principes”. 


Sr ASY 
Quite a difference in meaning between HJ, ‘‘height” and <<¢], 


‘‘aneuli”! The probable explanation of ἐλ is the following: In 
the Hebrew the word for ‘‘ corner” is 139 the plural is mip. 
The nw Sv preceding F537 would seem to the translator to indi- 
cate that the latter was plural’. Evidently the Syriac translator 
interpreted the singular ΤΠ in the unpointed Hebrew text as the 


plural (X35, by the easy transposition of J and 9. This map 


would then in the Syriac be translated acy ‘‘angles” or ‘‘ cor- 
ners”. In the Φεννεδδωρ of Josh. 11:2; 12:23 (B text) the transla- 
tor may have found warrant for transposing the first two conso- 
nants. Moreover, the five towns he mentions in this verse (i. e. 
Bethshean, Jibleam, En-dor, Taanach and Megiddo—Dor is omitted 
in the Syriac), might easily have seemed to him, with his probably 
rather hazy idea of the relative positions of the places, to form a 


rough triangle, a ‘‘three corners” (<2), This supposedly tri- 
angular shape of the district might have confirmed his faith in the 
correctness of his rendering. But when Dor is substituted, as it 
should be, for Endor*, this argument from the shape of the district 
would be weakened. The interpretation of Naphath as ‘‘height”, 
we must conclude, best fits the facts and the verses in which the 
name occurs. 

The peculiar and probably impossible form Ndi in ΓΦ Ψ 
939 (in the Hebrew of Joshua 17:11) requires some explanation, 
Evidently 93 is in the construct state in the other instances where 
it is used (viz. in Joshua 11:2; 12:23; 1 Kings 4:11), and is there- 
fore to be translated ‘‘ height of ” or ‘‘heights of ” Dor. As will 
be shown in the discussion of the verse, HJ in Josh. 17:11 was 
likewise originally a construct form. It seems probable, that is, 
that we have to do with a marginal gloss, np) PIO whose 
purpose it was to record a variant and superior reading of the 
name of the third city in the enumeration: IN AD) instead of 





' See the discussion of Joshua 17:11 on pp. 45 ff. 
2 Cp. Trinacria. 
° See the discussion of Joshua 17:11. 





History of Dor. 27 


simply NJ. When the gloss strayed into the text, the } became 
of necessity the article, and was attached to the following word, while 
ΓΙ was pointed as a segholate noun (73, with the first vowel 
becoming τ in the pause). But no such form would be possible 
from the root 4} , ΠΟΙ does there seem to be any way of account- 
ing for the form, other than the one just suggested. The proposal 
to pronounce the name as plural, nit, is quite fruitless. The 
supposed segholate noun $993 should be omitted from our Hebrew 


lexicons. 





1 Budde, Hoizinger, Kittel, et al. 


THE NAME TANTURA. 
The name of the modern town is giv en by travelers under the 


three forms: Tantira', Arabic Sybil Tartira’, Arabic i bb, 


and 'Tortira’, Arabic, 8 ploy, In reality these are variant forms 
of the same name’; the letters r and n belong to the same organ and 
are therefore, especially in borrowed words, easily interchanged. 
The words tantir, tartir and tortir (also tontir) all denote a 
pointed or peaked cap, formerly worn by the Bedouin of Egypt, 
and still in use among the dervishes of Egypt and Syria. They 
also signify the horn of bone or metal used as part of the head-dress 
by Maronite and Druse women in Syria’, 


Dozy derives the word from the verb r bse, “‘oloriatus fuit” 
or ‘in altum sustulit, elevavit.” But 7b b does not seem to be a 
native Arabic verb at all, and Fraenkel’ rightly rejects this deriva- 
tion. It is, on the contrary, extremely probable that jee is a 


denominative verb from the noun ΕΞ . Inthe Arabic language, 
therefore, no derivation can be discovered for the nominal form. 
In all probability the word is quite foreign to the language and has 





'Van de Velde, Narrat. 1:333 (1854); Wilson, Lands of the Bible, 11:249 ; 
Wilson, Picturesque Pal., pp. 114 ff.; Guerin, Sam. 2:305f.; S.W.P. Mem. 
Il, p. 3; 6. A. Smith, Hist. Geog., p. 128; Baedeker (4), pp. 281f. 


’ P.ELF.Q., 1887, p. 181, no. 88. Guérin writes typical . 


3. Chevalier d’Arvieux (c. 1700) in Labat, Merkwiirdige Nachrichten, part 
ΤΙ, pp. 11-18; Buckingham, Trav. in Pal., p. 123 (1821). 

4 Pococke, Description of the East, Il, p. 57 (1745); Irby and Mangles, 
Travels in Egypt, ete., p. 59 (1844); Munk, Palestine, p. 59 (1845)—this writer 
says the town is called by the Arabs Ras-el-hedjl (i. e. ‘‘ head of the plain”). 
—Instead of the feminine ending §, the three names are sometimes given 
with the mase. 5. 

δ Dozy, Vétements, pp. 262 ff., Suppl. 11:36 ; Fraenkel, ταπεινοῖ ΤΙ 
worter, p. 58; P.E.F.Q., 1896, p. 171; S.W.P., Name Lists, pp. 141, 117; 
Arabic Dictionaries. 

6 Dozy, loc. cit. 

7 Loe. cit. 








History of Dor. 29 


been borrowed from without. This fact doubtless accounts for the 
variations we find in the writing, both in its use as a common noun 
and as a designation of ancient Dor. 

Fleischer’, followed by Fraenkel’ and Jastrow’, suggests that the 
Aramaic P10 ὁ, a plural noun meaning ‘‘ Kopfbedeckungen, Miit- 


2 OR . . 
zen’’, is connected with the Arabic Saad (and its variants) of 
Dozy’. He finds no Aramaic origin for Por: Fraenkel raises 


the question whether it be a genuine Aramaic word at all. Levy’ 
suggests ‘‘teretes”’’, Jastrow ‘‘turritum ” (capitis ornamentum), as 
the Latin original of the Aramaic word. 


Thus the Arabic ΠΟῪΣ and the Aramaic 1 0, both signifying 
head-covering or cap, stand isolated in their respective languages 
and yet in apparent connexion one with the other. Both seem to 
be borrowed, and the original must be sought in some language 
with which the people of Syria and Arabia came into contact. The 
conquest of these lands by Alexander opened the way for Greek 
influence upon the native languages, and the Roman settlers after 
Pompey brought in many Latin words; in either the Greek or the 
Latin, then, the original word is probably to be sought. 

The Latin ‘‘tentorium” (English ‘‘tent”—in Middle Latin it is 
also used to signify an ‘‘umbrella”*) seems to be the most probable 


De 
original of both (δ) plait and 0 - In borrowed words the ten- 
dency is to conform at first rather closely to the original form; later 
the word is changed to accommodate it more nearly to the language 
into which it is taken. The Aramaic form as borrowed from the 
Latin ‘‘tentorium” was probably Δ, the ‘‘ium” as usual drop- 


ping off. Metathesis in borrowed words is very common and fol- 





1 In his supplementary notes in J. Levy, Neuhebrdisches und Chalddisches 
Worterbuch, Vol. 11, p. 210 (1879). 

3 Die Aram. Fremdworter im Arab., p. 53 (1886). 

3 Dict. of the Targumim, etc., p. 552b (1903). 

4 Jastrow vocalizes POI - 

°S. Krauss (Griech. u. Latein. Lehnworter im Talmud, etc., ΤΙ, pp. 271 ff.) 
questions, but without sufficient reason, this definition of Pore : 

5 Newhebr. u. Chald. Worterbuch, s.v. 

1 Plural of adj. teres, ‘‘rounded off”; fig. ‘‘smooth”. 

5 Du Cange, Glossarium mediae et infimae Latinitatis, s.v. 


30 George Dahl, 


lows no fixed laws’. Consequently the transposition of J and * in 
this word resulting in the form [QO is not an unusual phe- 
nomenon. The ending 77 was later regarded as plural, 

In the Arabic a somewhat similar process took place. The oldest 


form of the noun is very likely jpaab , practically a transliteration 


of tentor(ium). Next the n assimilated to the r of the last syllable 
»- 


penultimate syllable was assimilated to the ᾿ of the ultima, and the 


and the form & came into being. Last of all the vowel of the 


9. 2? 0? : 2 - . 
form pre was the result. This last is the most typically Arabic 


form of the three*. This explanation of the probable history of the 
word is confirmed by the fact that at the time Dozy wrote (in 1845) 
the word was in different stages of its development in various coun- 
tries’. In Syria the form tantoura was used; in Egypt, tartour; 
and in Algiers, tortora. This illustrates also the fact that in Syria 
each of these forms was used at one time or another, and probably 
more than one form was in accepted use at the same time. It 
explains, too, the persistence or recurrence of the older form Tan- 
tira in the name of the modern town, although Tortiira is appar- 
ently the more recent version of the name. ‘These various forms of 
the word seem to be used interchangeably, now one, now another, 
being in current use. 

The derivation from the Latin ‘‘tentorium” thus takes into 
account the various changing forms tantir, tartir and tortir. 
Levy’s suggestion* that [OO is derived from the rather far- 
fetched ‘‘teretes”, as well as Jastrow’s® proposal of ‘‘ turritum ” 
must be rejected. The derivation from ‘‘tentorium” has also this 
superiority to the other suggestions—we can see that the name 





1E. g. σκύφος becomes in the Talmud Xp51D (S. Krauss, Griech. u. Lat., 
etc., I, pp. 118 ff.), Cp. also Syr. ΝΟ ΤΡ from καλδάριον, Arab. κ ὅλα 


o Ὁ ὦν - 
from yay , Uandi0d from U-2b0 (μέταξα), (S455) from ἀρσένικον, and 


many others. 

* The form tontura also cited by Dozy (loc. cit.) is simply a variant form in 
which the assimilation of the vowel’ preceded that of the consonant ,. 

3. Dozy, Vétements, pp. 262 ff. ) 

4 Page 29. 

5 Tbid. 





᾿ 


| 


History of Dor. 31 


might quite easily be applied to a head-covering. The peaked 
cap known under the name of tantiir bears some resemblance 
to a tent both in shape and in the open space within; like a tent it 
is a covering. The Middle Latin use of the word ‘‘tentorium” to 
denote ‘‘ umbrella” is a suggestive parallel. 

Through what channels did this word make its way into the Ara- 
maic and the Arabic respectively ? The Aramaic-speaking peoples 
came into immediate contact with the Roman legions and colonists. 
In all probability they took over their V10J0 directly from the 
Romans, later changing the form to [%}0710-. The Arabs, however, 
did not usually come into such direct relations with the Greek and 
Roman settlers; it is a fact that most of their Greek and Roman 
loan-words seem to have come by way of the Aramaic, It is 
furthermore most improbable that the same word should have been 
borrowed independently both by the Aramaic and the Arabic. The 
most probable explanation is, therefore, that the Arabs took over 
the word from the Aramaic-speaking peoples of Syria; these in 
their turn had borrowed it from the Romans. 

The question of how this name came to be applied to the modern 
village, successor to ancient Dor, must be considered. Two other 
instances of the use of tantiir as a proper name suggest a possible 
answer. Tantir Fer’on is the name given by natives to a tomb 
just outside Jerusalem which is distinguished by a pointed peak’. 
A natural mound outside Acre, said to have been used as a redoubt 
in a siege of that city, bears the designation ‘‘ Tell el-Tantiar” 
(‘‘ Mound of the Peak”’)*. There was probably here at one time 
some sort of a peaked or pointed structure from which this name 
was derived. Is it not probable that in both these cases the name 
Tantir was applied because of a real or fancied resemblance to the 
peaked cap or horn (tantir)? 

The application of the name Tantira either to the ruins or to the 
town® was made in a similarway. Until January 15th, 1895 (when 





1This tomb is otherwise known as ‘‘ Absalom’s Pillar”; (Fleischer zu 
Seetzen’s Reisen IV, 256; S.W.P., Name Lists, p. 319). 

2 S.W.P., Name Lists, pp. 117, 141. 

8. It is quite possible that the ruins were called Tanttra before the town 
received that name, perhaps even before the modern town came into being. 
The name does not seem to go back very far. 


32 George Dahl, 


it collapsed)’, the most striking feature in the neighborhood of 
Tantira was a high tower, partly in ruins, situated on a rocky 
promontory north of the present town. This was clearly visible at 
every point from Carmel to Caesarea*, The tower was called 
el-Burj or Khirbet Tantira, and in shape resembled somewhat the 
peaked cap or horn (tantir). Doubtless this, the most character- 
istic and dominating feature of the vicinity, gave to the place its 
name, Tanttra. With the changes in the name of the peaked cap 
itself to tartar and tortir’, the name of the ruins and town changed 
accordingly. 

The ancient name of the town may have played a part in fixing 
the modern name ‘Tantira*. There is a marked resemblance in 
sound between 'Tantira (or Tartira or Tortira) and Dora, the usual 
Greek form of the ancient name. In the Semitic languages the 
dentals d and t sometimes pass over into one another’, so that Dora 
might become Tora’. In fact the Tabula Peutingeriana’ actually 
gives the name as Thora, which is equivalent to Tora. This would 
indicate that at a very early period (4th Cent. A. D.?) the name was 
sometimes pronounced with emphatic t. That the distinction 
between ὦ and b is not always strictly observed in this very town 
is proved by the fact that Dr. Barth plainly heard the natives pro- 
nounce the name of the town as Dandora*. It appears quite prob- 





1 Schumacher in P.H.F.Q., 1895, p. 118. A. W. Cook, Palestine, 2:172 
(1901) refers to the tower as though it were still standing. Baed. (4) (1906), 
pp. 231f. makes the same error. 

2 Murray, Handbook (1875), p. 858; P.H.F.Q., 1878, pp. 99f.; Baed. (4) 
(1906), p. 991, 

* See Ὁ. 90. 

‘The theory of Gesenius (Thes. 891) that Tartura or Torttra is to be inter- 
preted 50 pre: “‘mons Dorae”’, is not at all probable. So Riehm, Hand- 
worterbuch I, 285. 

> Wright, Comp. Gram., p. 53; Gesenius-Buhl, under 5, {9, Ὡ : Lane 
1819. In Turkish both ὦ and b can be pronounced either as d or t (Zenker, 
Tiirk.-Arab.-Pers. Handworterbuch, pp. 418, 588. 

ΟΕ, lye = (ra) Θηριακά (Fraenkel, Aram. Fremdw., p. 240). See also 


Ewald, Ausfithrliches Lehrbuch (1870), $47 C. 

1 Ed. Desjardins, Seg. IX. Tie Tabula Peut. is probably of the 4th Cent. 
A.D. 

8 Ritter, Hrdkunde XVI, 607-612; Riehm, Handwoérterbuch I, 285. In 
Germany the Saxons in like manner often substitute d for t. 


History of Dor. 33 


able, therefore, that the initial consonant of Dora was, occasionally 
at least, changed to emphatic t, giving the form Tora. When later 
the tantir-shaped ruined tower became the dominant feature of the 
landscape, the chance resemblance between the words Tora and 
tantiir may have suggested to some native punster the appropriate- 
ness of applying the name Tantiira to the ruins of Tora. Subse- 
quently the inhabitants of the native town adopted the new name'— 


The feminine ending of Syplail is doubtless derived from the Ara- 
maic determinative ending Nr’. 





1 Compare the adoption of the reproachful term ‘‘Christians” by the 
early church. 
? Supra, p. 17. 


TRANS. CONN. ACAD., Vol. XX. 3 1915, 


THE GOLENISCHEFF PAPYRUS. 


In that important and interesting document, named after its pur- 
chaser and first publisher the Golenischeff Papyrus’, discovered in 
1891 at Khibeh in upper Egypt, mention is made of the town of 
Dor. UHrihor, the High Priest of Amon, although not called King, 
seems to be in control at Thebes at the time (c. 1100 B. C.)* the 
events narrated in this document occurred; while Nesubenebded 
(Smendes), afterward the first king of the 21st dynasty, rules the 
Delta from his seat at Tanis. In response to an oracle, Hrihor 
despatches an official named Wenamon to Byblos to procure cedar 
from Lebanon for the construction of a new sacred barge for 
Amon. In addition to a meager supply of money and presents the 
messenger is given an image of the God, called ‘* Amon-of-the- 
Way”, which is to serve as a passport with the kings on his 
journey. Having encountered extraordinary difficulties in the ful- 
fillment of his task, Wenamon upon his return makes out a long 
report of the mishaps that had interfered with the success of his 
mission. The Golenischeff Papyrus contains Wenamon’s authentic 
report. 

As first issued by Golenischeff the Papyrus seemed to indicate 
that the greater part of Wenamon’s transactions, including the pur- 
chase of timber, took place at Dor*. According to the improved 
arrangement of the Papyrus fragments by Erman‘, however, the 
major part of this story has Byblos as its scene of action. 

On the 16th day of the 11th month, in the 5th year (probably of 
Ramses XII) Wenamon left Thebes. At Tanis he was kindly 





1 Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt, vol. IV, pp. 274 ff.; Hist. of Egypt, 
pp. 518 ff.; W. M. Miller, Asien. und Eur., pp. 388f.; Mit. Vorderasiat. 
Ges. (i900), pp. 30 ff.; Maspero, Struggle of the Nations, p. 470 (note). 

2 Breasted gives the date as the ‘‘ fifth year of the last of the Ramessids 
(= Ramses XII, 1118-1090 B.C.), when he is but the shadow of a king”; 
Miller dates Hri-hor ‘‘nicht spater als 1050, wahrscheinlich etwas frither”. 

5. On the basis of this incorrect arrangement Guthe in 1908 (Paldstina, pp. 
74f.) argues that in Wenamon’s time the neighborhood of Dor was thickly 
wooded. Inasmuch as Erman had rearranged the fragments of the 
Papyrus in 1900 Guihe need not have made this error. 

4In Zeit. fiir Agypt. Sprache (1900) no. 38, pp. 1ff.; Breasted, Miller and 
other scholars follow Erman’s improvement in the order of fragments. 


History of Dor. 35 


received by the ruling Nesubenebded, and sent on his way in a ship 
under the command of a Syrian captain. To quote from Wena- 
mon’s own account’: ‘‘Nesubenebded and Tentamon sent me with 
the ship-captain, Mengebet, and I descended into the great Syrian 
(H?’-rw) sea, in the fourth month of the third season, on the first 
day. I arrived at Dor a city of Thekel (T’-k’-r’), and Bedel 
(B’-dy-r’)*, its king, caused to be brought forth for me much bread, 
a jar of wine, and a joint of beef. 
‘“Then a man of my ship fled, having stolen: 


— (vessels) of gold (amounting to) 5 deben 
4 vessels of silver, amounting to 20 deben 
A sack of silver 11 deben 


(Total of what) he (stole) 5 deben of gold 
31 deben of silver. 


(About 1} lbs. of gold and about 74 lbs. of silver—Breasted. ) 


“Tn the morning then I rose and went to the abode of the prince, 
and I said to him: ‘I have been robbed in thy harbor. Since thou 
art the king of this land, thou art therefore its investigator, who 
should search for my money. For the money belongs to Amon-Re, 
King of Gods, the lord of the lands; it belongs to Nesubenebded, 
and it belongs to Hrihor, my lord, and the other magnates of 
Egypt; it belongs also to Weret (W’rty), and to Mekmel’ 
(M-k’-m-rw), and to Zakar-Baal (T’-k’-rw-B-‘-r’)*, the prince of 
Byblos’’.” 

“ἢ 8 said to me: ‘To thy honor and thy excellence! but behold 
I know nothing of this complaint which thou hast lodged with me. 
If the thief belonged to my land, he who went on board (Lit., 
descended into) thy ship, that he might steal thy treasure, I would 
repay it to thee from my treasury, till they find thy thief by name; 
but the thief who robbed thee belongs to thy ship. Tarry a few 


days here with me and I will seek him’.” 





1 Breasted, Ancient Records, IV, pp. 278-9; cp. Erman in Zeit. fiir 
Agypt. Sprache, no. 38, pp. 6 ff. f 

23 Miller (As. und Eur., p. 388) transliterates the name Bi-d-ira, 

3 There is here given first the Egyptians who sent the valuables, and then 
the Syrians to whom it was to be paid. 

4=5y9-45}. 


5 This indicates the locality where Wenamon expects to buy the timber. 


36 George Dahl, 


‘¢ When I had spent nine days moored in his harbor, I went to 
him and said to him: ‘Behold, thou hast not found my money 
(therefore let me depart) with the ship-captain and with those 
who go...’” (four lines are lost here and an uncertain amount 
more. ) 

(Some twenty-three additional lines are missing here) ‘‘.. . the 
sea. He said to me: ‘Be silent. ..’” (three lines containing but 
a few broken words; among them a reference to searching for the 
thieves. The journey from Dor to Tyre is somewhere in these 
lacunae. ) 

On his way from Tyre to Byblos, Wenamon in some way meets 
some of the Thekel with a bag (?) of silver weighing 30 deben. 
He seized this as security for the 31 deben of silver he had lost. 
Four months and 12 days after his departure from Thebes, he 
arrives at Byblos. Having come in an ordinary merchant ship 
without rich gifts, Wenamon is ordered by Zakar-Baal to leave. 
But after 19 days one of the noble youths attendant upon Zakar- 
Baal falls into a prophetic ecstasy and demands that Wenamon be 
summoned and treated with honor. The king in conversation with 
Wenamon asserts his independence of Egypt and requires Wena- 
mon to send to Egypt for part payment of the timber he wishes to 
secure. After the return of Wenamon’s messenger with gold and 
silver and other valuables, the desired logs are delivered by the 
king. Upon promising to pay the balance Wenamon is permitted 
to embark. But to his despair he discovers eleven Thekel (Tak- 
kara) ships outside the harbor, waiting to arrest him, doubtless 
because of his seizure of silver from the Thekel he had met between 
Tyre and Byblos. Zakar-Baal on the following day calls the 
Thekel fleet to an interview, during which Wenamon embarks and 
escapes. Contrary winds, however, drive him to Cyprus (Alasa), 
where he barely escapes being killed by the populace. He manages 
to secure an audience with the Queen and is protected by her. The 
report here breaks off and we do not know how Wenamon finally 
managed to reach Egypt. 

The Thekel (or Takkari), whom Wenamon finds settled at Dor, 
had befun entering Syria under Ramses ΠῚ (1198-1167 B.C.) 80 
years or more before. In his eighth year Ramses met and deci- 
sively routed in Syria by land and sea a number of maritime 
tribes who had made common cause with the invading Libyans. 


History of Dor. 37 


According to the Medinet Habu inscriptions’, these tribes consisted 
of the Peleset (Pw-r’-s’-t), the Thekel (I’-k-k’-r’), the Shekelesh 
(S’-k-rw-%’), the Denyen (D’-y-n-yw) and the Weshesh (W’-9’-%’). 
Papyrus Harris’ adds to this list the Sherden. These sea-peoples 
seem to have come from the coast and islands of Asia Minor’. 
Miiller* rejects the etymological identification of the name Takkari 
with Teucri’, on the ground that the double k makes this impos- 
sible. Maspero® and Breasted’ are inclined to see in them the 
Siculi (or Sikeli). 

Apparently these invading tribes received only a temporary set- 
back in their defeat by Ramses III. In the reference in Wena- 
mon’s account to the presence of Takkari at Dor we have proof 
that within less than a hundred years Ramses’ temporarily defeated 
opponents have firmly established themselves in Syria®. Their 
realm seems to have extended along the entire coast from Carmel to 
the Egyptian border. In the north were the Takkari; farther 
south were settled the Philistines and the remaining tribes’. 
Whether they came as a genuine ‘‘ Vélkerwanderung”’’’, or simply 
as mercenaries and robbers'’ who afterward settled down to agri- 
cultural and commercial life, there is hardly sufficient evidence to 
decide. 

Under the weak successors of Ramses III these tribes seem to 
have established their complete independence. It has been shown 
that the Egyptian messenger, Wenamon, is treated with scant cere- 





1 Breasted, Anc. Rec., IV, pp. 36 ff.; Miller, As. u. Hur., pp. 359 ff. 

3 Breasted, Anc. Rec., IV, ὃ 408. 

3 Miller, As. wu. Eur., pp. 860 f.; ibid., Mit. Vorderasiat. Ges., V (1900), p. 
4; Hommel, Grundriss, pp. 27f.; G. A. Smith, Hist. Geog., p. 197. 

4 Mit. V. A. Ges., V (1900), p. 1. 

> Hommel, Grundriss, pp. 27.f. 

6 Struggle, p. 464. 

7 Ane. Rec., IV, p. 33. 

8 Maspero’s theory (Struggle, p. 470) that Ramses III planted his captive 
Pulusati, etc., along this coast to safeguard the Egyptian frontier is improb- 
able and lacks confirmation. More probably he was unable to keep them 
back. 

* Paton, Harly Hist. of Pal. and Syria, p. 148; W.M.M. in Mit. V. A. 
Ges. (1900), p. 1; Ed. Meyer, in Hne. Bib. III, 3735. 

10 So Breasted, IV, p. 33; Ed. Meyer, l. c. 

1 W.M.M., As. wu. Eur., p. 360. 


38 George Dahl, 


mony both at Dor and at Byblos’. The king of Dor pays little 
attention to the complaint about the robbery, and later the Takkari 
fleet has no hesitation in pursuing Wenamon. 

Dor seems to be at this period a town of some importance. A 
fleet is maintained and the king carries himself with apparent dig- 
nity and confidence. He seems to have very little fear before the 
accredited representative of Egypt. The tribal name of the inhabi- 
tants of Dor (i. e. Takkara) does not again appear either in the Old 
Testament or in other literature*. Probably they were absorbed 
into one stock with the more important and powerful Philistines’. 





' We must, however, make due allowance for the probability that Wena- 
mon’s story is colored by his desire to justify his failure to fulfill his mis- 
sion. By picturing the kings as unfriendly he would more easily excuse 
his failure. 

2 Unless ‘‘alu Zak-ka-lu-i” of 4R34, No. 2 refers to them. See below, 
pp. 89 f. 

3 Erman, Zeit. fiir Agypt. Sprache, 38:1 ff. 


DOR IN ASSYRIAN LITERATURE. 


The town Dor is mentioned, together with other cities of Syria, 
in an Assyrian geographical list (2R53, No. 1, Rev.). Unfortu- 
nately this list is only a fragment and we are unable to determine 
its exact context. Probably it is the enumeration of conquests or 
tributary cities of some Assyrian ruler’, The transliteration of 
lines 35 to 41 follows’: 


line 35 δ᾽. Di-mas-ka (Damascus) 
alu Kar-ni-ni (?) 
alu Ya-ma-at-(ti) (Hamath) 
alu Fa-ta-rik-(ka) (Hadrach) 
alu Man-su-a-te (Mansuat) 
line 40 *'" Du-’-ru (Dor) 


“uSu-bat, “"Ha-ma-a-tu (Zoba; Chamath) 


AT HAL Set ATT 


Again in a similar fragmentary list of Syrian cities, whose exact 


Dor is written: 


purport is unknown, Dor occurs, this time between Damascus and 
Megiddo (2R53, No. 4)": 


line 55 315 Sa-me-ri-na (Samaria) 
alu Di-mas-ka (Damascus) 
alu Du--ru (Dor) 
“lu Ma-oi-du-u (Megiddo) 
alu Man-su-a-tu (Mansuat) 
line 60 “1 Si-mir-ra (Zemiar)* 


Here again Dor is written with medial’ (=y). 





1G. Rawlinson (Anc. Monarchies II, p. 397 f.) evidently with this list and 
the one next to be discussed in mind, names Tiglath-Pileser III as the ruler 
in question ; he adds that ‘‘ Dor was even thought of sufficient consequence 
to receive an Assyrian governor”. The information contained in the two 
references to the town does not furnish material on which to base either of 
his deductions. 

? Following Schrader’s transliteration in Keilinschriften und Geschichts- 
forschung, p. 122. 

3 Tbid., p. 121. 

4 The balance of the fragment (lines 61, 62) is broken off. 





40 George Dahl, 


As in Josh. 12:23; 17:11; Judg. 1:27; 1 Chron. 7229;-2Doms 
mentioned in this latter list in close connection with Megiddo. It 
would seem that these cities were connected in a way that led 
naturally to their being mentioned together. The fact that Dor 
appears in the list with these other cities of northern Syria makes it 
practically certain that the city is the one we are discussing, and 
not some other of the numerous cities with that name. The writ- 
ing with a medial breathing * corresponds to the more cor- 
rect INT. Apparently Dor is at the time of this inscription 
(sometime before 605 B.C.) a town of enough importance to be 
worth enumerating among the principal cities of the West. The 
town is not unknown in the land of Assyria. 


Hommel’ is inclined to identify the city Zakkalai (Zak-ka-lu-t) of 
4R34, No. 2 with Dor. This document is a letter written by a 
high Babylonian official to an Assyrian*. In it mention is twice 
(lines 41, 45) made of ‘**!"Zak-ka-lu-t,” where one of them had 
waited (in vain ?) a whole day for the other. The identification of 
Dor with Zak-ka-lu-t is, however, very precarious. ‘The name as 
we have it in Egyptian references’ is written with simple k (3) and 
not as here, with k (Ὁ). Furthermore, we have no evidence that Dor 
was ever called Zakkara or the ‘* Zakkalite town.” Hommel’s con- 
tention’ that the name Dor is derived from Takkar might, if true, 
indicate that Dor is the town referred to in this letter; but it has 
been shown that his derivation of the name lacks all semblance of 
probability. Until we find good evidence that Dor was also called 
Zakkara or ‘‘the Zakkalite town”, we must omit 4R34, No. 2 from 
the list of references to Dor in Assyrian or Babylonian literature. 





1 Geschichte, pp. 482 f.: Proceedings of the Society of Biblicul Archaeology, 
(1895) 17:203; Anc. Heb. Trad., pp. 238 f. 

3 Tiele (Bab-Assyr. Geschichte, p. 145), however, holds that the letter is 
from an Assyrian to a Babylonian prince. 

5 Breasted, Ane. Rec. IV, p. 278 (T’-k’-r), pp. 86 ff. (T’-k-k’-1’); Miller, As. 
u. Eur., Ὁ. 388; Hommel, Grundriss, pp. 27 ff. 

4 Grundriss, l. c.; see above p. 20. 


DOR IN THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE APOCRYPHA. 


JOSHUA 11:2. 


The first Biblical reference’ to Dor is in Joshua 11:2, in connec- 
tion with the conquest of Canaan by Joshua. In chapter 10 the 
subjugation of the southern portion of the land has been described. 
Chapter 11 continues the story by narrating the events connected 
with Joshua’s conquest of the kings in the northern half of Canaan. 
According to this account Jabin, King of Hazor’, forms a coalition 
of these northern kings to oppose Joshua. He sends to Jobab, 
King of Madon, and to the Kings of Shimron and Achshaph (Josh. 
11:1); he also sends (Josh. 11:2): 


APDWD ANID 32) ΓΙ} 3) WD [DSI WN O'D7T-MW) © 
Ὁ AIT NII 
2) HT) PONT) DD) NM 93VIDT (88) 


‘And to the kings who were on the north, in the hill-country, and 
in the Arabah over against® Chinneroth, and in the Shephelah and in 
the heights of Dor on the west, to the Canaanites on the east and on 
the west, and the Amorites, and the Hittites, etc.” The Greek (B) 
reads: (2) καὶ πρὸς τοὺς βασιλεῖς τοὺς κατὰ Σιδῶνα τὴν μεγάλην, εἰς τὴν 
ὀρεινὴν καὶ εἰς τὴν Ῥαβὰ ἀπέναντι Κενερώθ, καὶ εἰς τὸ πεδίον καὶ εἰς Φεναεδδώρ, 
(3) καὶ εἰς τοὺς παραλίους “)Xavavaiovs ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν, καὶ εἰς τοὺς παραλίους 
᾿Αμορραίους καὶ Evaious, κτλ. Variant: For Φεναεδδώρ, A* gives Ναφεδωρ, 
A'F offer Ναφεθδωρ. The form Φεναεδδώρ has clearly arisen from the 
simple transposition of the syllables va and de in Ναφεθδώρ. The 
second ε in φεναεδδωρ may represent a misreading of the uncial letter 
θ as «; the doubling of the 6 may be a correction from φεννεδδώρ of 
Josh. 12:23. Apparently this Greek ferm is based, not on midJ 
as in the text here, but on 3 as in the other passages’. 

For pipx2 in the Hebrew of verse 2 we should probably read 


ΠΝ, since there is no occasion for the use of the status con- 
5 ἰ- 





1 That is, first in order of book and chapter, not in order of composition. 
2 Cf. Judges 4:2, 17. 
3 See below for change to 33. 


4The large number of variants in the writing of this name illustrates 
how proper names change in transmission from one language to another. 


42 George Dahl, 


structus here’. The reading of the Greek: κατὰ Σιδῶνα τὴν μεγάλην, 
is certainly to be rejected. Σιδῶνα arose from a misreading of 
Pas as ws. {t would seem that the Greek translator read 
here V7 (739 1 instead of WAI Ν᾽. Quite possibly he 
was influenced by (72) [IWS of verse 8. The Greek has ἀπέναντι 
for the hardly possible 33) and points, therefore, to JJ as the 
original reading®. Ὁ is read by the Greek with the following 
verse and mistranslated, καὶ εἰς τοὺς παραλίους, κτλ. ; the Greek trans- 
lates Ὁ of verse 3 in exactly the same way; whereas Ὁ should 
be rendered ‘‘on the West”, or ‘‘ westward’. 

The reference in verse 2 is throughout to regions or districts. 
“7 refers to the mountainous territories in northern Samaria and 
Galilee ὅς: by FINID 22 MAW is probably meant the Jordan val- 
ley near the Sea of Galilee and perhaps also the plain to the west 
of the sea’; mau’ refers to the low hills between the Central Range 
and the coast plain’. In like manner the term 9} [92 must sig- 
nify the hilly district east of Dor including the ridge extending 
from Carmel to Caesarea”, 

Verse 2 seems to be a later insertion in the text, dating from the 
earlier part of the Persian Period’. So far as the event it purports 
to record is concerned, it has very little historical value. It does, 
however, reflect the conviction of a later supplementer that the 
region Naphath Dor was important in earlier times. Doubtless he 
based this conclusion upon the prominence of the district and of the 
city of Dor in his own time. Not even are names assigned to the 
shadowy kings of these vaguely defined districts. We can hardly 





1 Bennett, S.B.O.T.; Holzinger, K.H.A.T.; Steuernagel. 

* Margolis in A.J.S.£., XXVIII (1911), p. 12. 

° Steuernagel, et al. 

+The translator’s knowledge of Hebrew is perhaps defective (A.J.S.L., 
XXVIII, p. 18). 

ὃ Steuernagel, Holzinger. 

® Tbid. 

7 Not the coast plain itself (as in Steuernagel and Holzinger), G.A.S., Hist. 
Geog., p. 203; S. R. Driver in Hast., D.B., III, 894. 

8 See the discussion of the name Naphath Dor, pp. 21 ff. 

® Bennett assigns it to Τὺ; Carpenter and Battersby to R*, an expansion 
of vv. 1, 4-9 (J); Steuernagel to D’?; Holzinger to ‘‘JEs? D? jiinger?” 
Verse 1 is much older. 








History of Dor. 43 


suppose, therefore, that the late writer of this verse had any dis- 
tinct individuals in mind. 


JOSHUA 12:22, 23. 


The twelfth chapter of Joshua gives a list of the kings subdued 
by the Israelites in the course of their conquest of Canaan, verses 
1-6 covering the East-Jordan region and verses 7—24 the rulers 
west of the Jordan. In the list of kings defeated by Joshua in the 
West-Jordan country appears the King of Dor. Josh. 12:22, 23 
reads: : 

| TION BID TID. 
STAN 79732 DVI? Ἴ75 

TN WT DIP WA 77 5) 
ἼΠΝ 9994? Θ᾽) 77 


The King of Kedesh: . One. 
The King of Jokneam, i. e., the Carmel district: One. 
The King of Dor, 1. e., the Height of Dor: One. 


The King of the Nations, i. e., the District (= Galilee): One’. 


The Greek (B) reads: (21, 22) βασιλέα Κάδης, Βασιλέα Zaxay, Βασι- 
λέα Μαρεδὼθ καὶ βασιλέα “lexou τοῦ Χερμέλ, (23) βασιλέα ᾿λδὼμ τοῦ Pev- 
νεδδώρ, βασιλέα Τεεὶ τῆς Γαλειλαίας. 

Codex A is here, as usual, far superior to B. In verses 21, 22 
‘both the order and name-forms of the Hebrew are much more faith- 
fully and more correctly reproduced by A. 1t has @avay, Mayeddwv, 
Κεδες and Ιεκοναμ. In verse 23, A offers instead of Ἔλδωμ the form 
Addwp. Evidently Aé is the combination of the final vowel of βασι- 
dea with the initial consonant of Awp—a clear case of dittography. 
A also offers in this verse the superior reading, Na@eddwp. In this 
form the 68 instead of 68 is probably to be accounted for by the 
fact that, in the cursive manuscripts, 6 and 6 are written so much 
alike that they are easily confused’, For Tea, A reads T'wep, and 
for Γαλειλαίας it has Tedyea (1. 6. Τελγελ, A in an uncial manuscript 





1 See the discussion following, for departures from the usual rendering of 
this passage. 

?Maunde Thompson, Hdbk. of Gk. and Lat. Paleography, Table opp. p. 
148. There may also have been an unconscious assimilation in speech or 
writing of the # to the 0.—For a fuller discussion of the word, see the chap- 
ter on Naphath Dor. 


44 George Dahl, 


having been read A). In this last instance, Γαλειλαίας of B is doubt- 
less to be preferred to the readings of A and the Hebrew. In 
agreement with the B-text the Hebrew here ought probably to be 
emended so as to read 992. It is probable that, as in 2173 of 
verse 22, “WWI nd of verse 23 and nw in verse 18, a district is 
referred to. We know of no district called 2473; but the name 
292 is applied to the region on the northern border of Israel’s ter- 
ritory’. Doubtless this is the district here meant. 

The reference in verse 23 above is to J ni? 71.. The 
preposition 9 of ni? is rendered by the American Revised Ver- 


sion (and usually) ‘¢in”. 


The same interpretation of yy, is generally 
given in 2393? (verse 23) and 999759 (verse 22)°. In all these 
cases, however, the preposition seems rather to be meant in the 
sense of ‘‘namely”, ‘‘i, e.” This usage is exactly the same as that 
found in classical Arabic’. An excellent illustration of this use of 
is found in Ezek. 44:5: Ὁ ΠΤ 22 ὉῚ AINA. ΠΊΡΙΠ 729 
‘Namely, all the statutes of fie house of Jeneqan and Bae 
all its laws”. Again in Ezek. 44:9 the expression, 33° (ee 2p 
should be rendered: ‘‘namely (or ‘‘i. e.”) every foreigner”. This 
use of 5 seems to have escaped the translators of our English 
Bible. Ὁ 

In accord with this interpretation we must translate Joshua 
12:22, 23 above: 


(22) The king of Kedesh: One’. 
The king of Jokneam (1. e., Carmel): One. 
(23) The king of Dor (i. e., the Heights of Dor): One. 
The king of Nations (i. e., the District) : One. 





1 50 Dillman, Kittel, Holzinger, Bennett, Steuernagel. 
? B.D.B. s.v;, 595 2). 


‘To these instances should be added nw? in verse 18. This verse 


must be emended to read TON paw? | PON 20 ( (So Bennett, Holzinger, 


Steuernagel, et al.). 

4 See especially Torrey, Ezra Studies, pp. 121f., 2738; Comp. and Hist. 
Value of Ezra-Neh., p. 18; Wright, Gram. (8), If, 151 C; Ges.-Buhl (18), 
Handworterbuch, under % , 880. 

> The numeral ‘‘ one” does not appear in the Greek, which is here quite 
corrupt. 





History of Dor. 45 


Similarly the emended text of verse 18 is to be rendered: 
(18) The king of Aphek (i. e., Sharon): One. 


In all these instances either the original compiler of the list or a 
later glossator introduces by means of the preposition Ὁ a more 
comprehensive designation of the whole realm ruled by each king. 
By the ‘‘King of Dor”, accordingly, is meant the ruler not only 
of Dor proper but as well of the whole district above the city known 
as Naphath Dor’. 

The list of kings in Joshua 12: 7-24 seems to come from a writer 
of the Deuteronomic school’. It dates, therefore, from the Persian 
period. Inasmuch as Dor can hardly have come under the domina- 
tion of the Hebrews until a much later date’, it is most improbable 
that Joshua really defeated the King of Dor. Consequently the 
notice in verse 23 merely reflects the opinion of a Deuteronomic 
editor writing in the Persian period as to the probable extent of 
Joshua’s conquests. 


JosHUA 17:11-18, supaES 1:27, 28, 1 CHRONICLES 7: 29. 


Following the account of the conquest of Palestine in the first 
half of the book, Joshua 12-24 deals with the apportionment of 
the territory. Chapters 16, 17 give a very confused description 
of the borders of the ‘‘ children of Joseph,” 1. e., Ephraim and the 
western half-tribe of Manasseh. After the south border of the two 
tribes as a whole, and the borders of Ephraim have been described 
in chapter 16, Joshua 17 continues with the borders of Manasseh. 
Verses 11-13 then give a list of cities located in Issachar and Asher 
ideally assigned to Manasseh, of which the tribe was, however, 
unable to secure possession. 





1 The use here of Naphath Dor in parallel construction with the districts 
Carmel, Galilee and Sharon (compare Josh. 11:2) is fairly conclusive 
evidence that the term refers to a region dependent on or adjacent to the 
city of Dor, and is not merely another name for the city itself. See the 
chapter on Naphath Dor. 

* Bennett assigns it to Ὁ"; Carpenter and Battersby to R‘; Steuernagel ta 
the Deut. school. Holzinger is inclined to assign it to Ps, though perhaps 
in dependence on JH. 

8 It is open to doubt whether Dor itself ever came under Hebrew rule. 
At least there is no satisfactory evidence to prove that it did. 


46 George Dahl, 


DYSI ΠΡ} ΠΝ ΡΞ. TWD TQwEND Neb oy aD 
mini} ἽΝ 2) mij) INT uv") mmo 

| ΓΦ MID 9 "32 INI VN "3 
ONT TPN pIyo-ny wind mb 99 123) ND) a2) 

SDNTT PINS aw) 1930 
NO WIT) OD? ΘΠ ΤΙΝ IN) ONT 23 IPI Ξ TP 9 
wen 

(11) ‘‘And Manasseh had in Issachar and in Asher: Beth-shean 
and its dependencies, and Ibleam and its dependencies, and the 
inhabitants of Dor and its dependencies, and the inhabitants of 
Endor and its dependencies, and the inhabitants of Taanach and its 
dependencies, and the inhabitants of Megiddo and its dependencies 
(Third in it is Naphath)’. 

(12) Yet the children of Manasseh were unable to dispossess 
those cities; but the Canaanites persisted in dwelling in that 
region. 

(13) And it came to pass, when the children of Israel became 
strong enough, that they put the Canaanites in the working gangs, 
but by no means dispossessed them 

The Greek (B) reads: 

(11) καὶ ἔσται Mavacon ἐν Ἰσσαχὰρ καὶ ἐν ᾿Ασὴρ Καιθοὰν καὶ ai κῶμαι 
ἀυτῶν, καὶ τοὺς κατοικοῦντας Δὼρ καὶ τὰς κώμας αὐτῆς. καὶ τοὺς κατοικοῦντας 
Μαγεδδὼ καὶ τὰς κώμας αὐτῆς, καὶ τὸ τρίτον τῆς Μαφετὰ καὶ τὰς κώμας αὐτῆς. 

(12) καὶ οὐκ ἠδυνάσθησαν οἱ υἱοὶ Μανασσὴ ἐξολεθρεῦσαι τὰς πόλεις ταύτας 
καὶ ἤρχετο 6 Χαναναῖος κατοικεῖν ἐν τῇ yy ταύτῃ: 

(19) καὶ ἐγενήθη καὶ ἐπεὶ κατίσχυσαν οἱ υἱοὶ Ἰσραήλ, καὶ ἐποίησαν τοὺς 


Χαναναίους ὑπηκόους, ἐξολεθρεῦσαι δὲ αὐτοὺς οὐκ ἐξωλέθρευσαν. 


In v.11 instead of Καιθοαν, B® “SA read more correctly Βαιθσαν. 
For Δωρ, B?® ΜῈ reads "Edwp. A has the form Mayeddwp. A inserts 
before καὶ τὸ τρίτον the phrase: καὶ τοὺς κατοικοῦντας Tavax καὶ τὰς 
κώμας αὐτῆς. For Madera, A has Ναφεθα. V.12: A has ἠδυνήθησαν. 
For ἤρχετο, A reads ἤρξατο (Cp. Judg. 1:27). V.13: A omits the 
second καὶ. For ἐπεὶ κατίσχυσαν BPA have ἐπικατίσχυσαν. For 
ἐξολεθρεῦσαι, A reads ὀλεθρεῦσαι. In verse 11 the rendering of ὙΠ 


in the Greek as a future, ἔσται; is probably due to the carrying over 





1 See discussion below. 


History of Dor. 4 


into the narrative of the idea of divine command suggested by the 
reference in verse 4 to Moses’ injunctions. That this is actually 
meant to be a future form is proved by its repetition in verses 8, 
9, 10, and by καταβήσεται in verse 9.—In verses 12, 13, writ. 
‘‘to dispossess,” is rendered ἐξολεθρεῦσαι, ‘‘to destroy utterly.” (Cp. 
ἐξαίρων in Judg. 1:27 (B), rendered by A there as ἐκληρονόμησεν). 
This use of ἐξολεθρεῦσαι is another instance of free interpretation by 
the translator, who was doubtless influenced in his rendering by 
the record of the divine injunction to put these cities under the 
ban (Cp. Josh. 8:2; 6:17, 21, 24). 

Included in the first chapter of Judges we have a parallel to the 
account in Joshua 17:11-13. According to this chapter the con- 
quest of Canaan was not achieved by a single irresistible move- 
ment of united Israel (as in the book of Joshua), but by a succes- 
sion of attacks by single tribes or by coalitions consisting of several 
tribes bound together by ancient ties or common interests. On 
the whole the representation in Judges is more historical than that 
in Joshua. After the narration of positive successes by Judah and 
Simeon (1: 1-20) and by the ‘‘ House of Joseph (1: 22-26), there 
follows a series of notices describing the failure of particular tribes 
to dispossess the native Canaanites. The first of these notices 
(1:27, 28) deals with the tribe of Manasseh, in whose allotted 
territory was situated the town of Dor: 


AYN) OPIS“) ἸΝΩ͂Ν mean win x} (27) 
py?>’ ΓΝ ΠΡ ΓΝ NT ΟΦ ΠΝῚ ΓΞ ΓΝ 
237 ONY ΓΙ ΓΝ Ὶ 17D AUN) man) 
NTT FIND Iw? 
δ BINT) DIN? IDT-NN UMD ONY? PID 7 8) 
win 
(27) ‘‘And Manasseh did not dispossess Beth-shean and its 
dependencies, nor Taanach and its dependencies, nor the inhabitants 
of Dor and its dependencies, nor the inhabitants of Ibleam and its 
dependencies, nor the inhabitants of Megiddo and its dependencies ; 
but the Canaanites persisted in dwelling in that region. 
(28) And it came to pass, when Israel became strong enough, 


that they placed the Canaanites in the working gangs, but by no 
means dispossessed them.” 


48 George Dahl, 


The Greek reads: 
(27) καὶ οὐκ ἐξῆρεν Mavacoy τὴν Βαιθσάν, ἥ ἐστιν Σκυθῶν πόλις, οὐδὲ τὰς 
΄ » “Ὁ 3 Ν Ν ‘6 > fod 3aQX Ν Ν aQXr Ν , 
θυγατέρας αὐτῆς οὐδὲ τὰ περίοικα αὐτῆς, οὐδὲ THY Θανὰκ οὐδὲ τὰς θυγατέρας 
3 “Ὁ 3Qd Ν a Ν 3Qs Ν / > ”~ 5 ν Ν 
αὐτῆς. οὐδὲ τοὺς κατοικοῦντας Δὼρ οὐδὲ τὰς θυγατέρας αὐτῆς, οὐδὲ τὸν κατοι- 
ἴω ἣν 3 Ν Ν 4 > a ΕΣ Ν , > Lol ΕΣ Ν 
κοῦντα Βαλὰκ οὐδὲ τὰ περίοικα αὐτῆς οὐδὲ τὰς θυγατέρας αὐτῆς. οὐδὲ τοὺς 
a ἈΝ ϑῸνΝ Ν > an Or Ν , > Ν 2QOX 
κατοικοῦντας Μαγεδὼ οὐδὲ τὰ περίοικα αὐτῆς οὐδὲ τὰς θυγατέρας αὐτὴς, οὐδὲ 
‘A Le] 3 Ν 3 Ν Ν A, > cel 3 Ν Ν ΄ὔ 3 les 
τοὺς κατοικοῦντας Ιεβλαὰμ οὐδὲ TA περίοικα αὐτῆς οὐδὲ τὰς θυγατέρας αὐτῆς" 
καὶ ἤρξατο ὃ Χαναναῖος κατοικεῖν ἐν τῇ γῇ ταύτῃ. 
90 Ἀν" «σοῦ “ Bh > ΄ era) ΄ \ ~ > 
(28) Kat ἐγένετο ὅτε ἐνίσχυσεν ᾿Ισραήλ, Kat ἐποίησεν τὸν Χαναναῖον εἰς 


΄ὔ Ά. 9¢ ΄ > 26> > / 
φόρον. καὶ ἐξαίρων οὐκ ἐξῆρεν αὐτόν. 


For ἐξῆρεν in ν. 27 of the Greek, A reads ἐκληρονόμησεν. (For 
Βαλακ it has Βαλααμ; this form stands in place of Ὁ» of the 
Hebrew text and corresponds to it. (Cp. Badaad in the Greek of 
1 Chron, 7:29.) Evidently the initial 5 has been lost because the 
final ¥ of the preceding ‘3%? confused the copyist. (Cp. the copy- 
ist’s error in the loss of the final 9 of 93% before “\j"J in this same 
verse.) Later, since the name Jibleam seemed to have been omitted 
in this list, someone added it after Megiddo, thus really repeating 
the name for Jibleam and giving six instead of five towns’. For 
περίοικα 1°, A gives περισπόρια; he omits it 2°, 3°, 4“, 4 ἐστιν Σκυθῶν 
πόλις 15 probably an interpretative comment by the translator, or 
else a later gloss that has strayed into the text. 

Again in 1 Chron, 7:29 there appears a notice similar to and 
doubtless derived from those in Josh. 17:11 and Judg. 1:27. In 
his notices contained in chapters 4-7 concerning the genealogies, 
history and military strength of the tribes, the Chronicler in chap. 
7:14-29 groups together the two sons of Joseph. Verses 14-19 of 
chapter 7 give the genealogy of Manasseh, while verses 20-27 trace 
Ephraim’s genealogy; in verse 28 the cities on the southern border 
of Ephraim are listed, while verse 29 gives the principal cities on 
the northern border of Manasseh. Instead of mentioning all the 
cities belonging to these two tribes, the writer describes their com- 
bined territories by naming those cities on the southern and north- 
ern boundaries. In his enumeration of the towns on the north, 
Dor is included (v. 29). 





‘In the Ene. Bib., Article ‘‘ Dor,” only four towns, viz., ‘‘ Bethshean, 
TIbleam, Megiddo and Dor,” are mentioned in Judg. 1:27. Evidently the 
omission of Taanach is an oversight. 


- History of Dor. 49 


FID PMID WH PNA peers ΠΕ 5 3. ΣΟῚ eo 
ON WN ]S APY a saw? MOND TAD WI PND 


The Greek reads: 
(29) καὶ ἕως ὁρίων υἱῶν Μανασσή; Βαιθσαὰν καὶ ai κῶμαι αὐτῆς, Θαλμὴ καὶ 
ai κῶμαι αὐτῆς - καὶ Βαλὰδ καὶ αἱ κῶμαι αὐτῆς, Μαγεδδεὶ καὶ ai κῶμαι αὐτῆς, 


\ \ ε lan 2A 3 , Q Ce VEN E>: \ en? ΄ 
Δὼρ καὶ αἱ κῶμαι αὐτῆς - ἐν ταύτῃ κατῴκησαν οὗ viol Ἰωσὴφ υἱοῦ Iopandr. 


(29) ‘‘And upon the borders of the children of Manasseh, 
Bethshean and its dependencies, Taanach and its dependencies, 
Megiddo and its dependencies, Dor and its dependencies. In these 
dwelt the children of Joseph the son of Israel.” 

Comments on the Greek: For Θαλμη, A reads @aavay. A has 
Maycddo. For υἱοῦ A* reads υἱοὶ. For Badad A reads Βαλααδ, which 
evidently corresponds to Βαλααμ of Judg. 1:27 (A), and like it is a 
corrupt rendering of Dy’. The initial iota of Ἰεβλαάμ was per- 
haps dropped through the influence of the final iota of καὶ preced- 
ing the name. (But ep. py? of 1 Chron. 6:55). The form 
Βαλααδ (with 5) may be due to the common confusion in Greek 
uncial writing of Aand M. The fact that the name occurs in some 
of the Greek texts’, though lacking in the Hebrew, is probably to 
be accounted for by the tendency of the Greek translators (or 
editors) to use their own judgment in revising and interpreting the 
text before them (Cp. Δωρ in the Greek of Judg..1:31, and 7 ἐστιν 
Σκυθῶν πόλις of Judg. 1:27). Here Jibleam seems to have been 
introduced from the parallel passages in Josh. 17:11 and Judg. 
1:27, more probably the latter’. 

As has been suggested above’, the peculiar phrase nd37 nwou 
in Josh. 17:11 was in all propane originally a ieee yl gloss, 
nos maw, that later found its way into the text, meant to 
point out that the third town in the list OWI = = ‘third of it”’) 


was to be read with prefixed DJ; i. e oN n2). This was 


evidently a variant reading, whether the ἘΠῚ and correct one 





1 Lagarde’s Edition omits Βαλαδ but follows the order of B. Instead of 
Μανασσὴ, it reads Μωυσῆς. Holmes-Parsons omits Βαλααδ in the text (based 
on KE®) but records it as appearing in several texts. 

2 The order of towns (except Dor) follows that of Judg. 1:27, and the form 


Βαλααὸ is, as explained above, equivalent to Βαλααμ of that verse. 
3 Pages 26f. 


TRANS. CONN. ACAD., Vol. XX. 4 1915. 


50 George Dahl, 


or intended merely to distinguish this INT from other Dor’s, for 
example, from “J 2) in the same verse. By a very natural mis- 
take, the two words of the gloss were wrongly divided, the ;7 be- 
ing taken for the article and therefore joined to the following. 
The gloss was then inserted at the end of the verse, no other place 
being obviously suitable for it. ΓΔ could not of course be read 
as ΓΞ, since ΓΒ) could only be the construct state of a noun 
15J. from the root V4 . The word was therefore not unnaturally 
read as a segholate, ni ᾿ as though from aroot ADJ. (To read 
npi7. as some modern commentators have suggested, is only to 
make a bad matter worse. The phrase would be grammatically 
objectionable, ΓΟ ΟΣ with a Jeminine noun, and the troublesome 
article; moreover, it has no possible meaning in the present con- 
text.) This explanation seems to be the only one that will in any 
satisfactory manner really explain the phrase that has proved such 
a stumbling block to all commentators’. 

In ΠΤ of Ezekiel 21:19 (Heb.) we have ἃ case almost exactly 
parallel to the one under discussion. The true significance of the 
form ΓΤ has also in this instance escaped the commentators. 


The verse, now corrupt, reads as follows: 
ree? IM 283) HI“ 4D ἼΠῚ NIT ΘΝ 3 ANN) (Ὁ) 
OF? ΓΎΠΠΙ WIT AP II NNT OI IN 


Apparently, a marginal note, pon an ΓΙ, supplied a 
variant reading for 29h Jn Grhich is the hen d time the word 
27 appears in the verse), That is, the form of the verse which the 
elossator wished to preserve was the following: JIM AW S55) 
8 Sys ὉΠ DIN ΝΠ OSA. Observe that this reading 
(with ὉΠ instead of 99m) is supported by the Old Greek (τραυ- 
ματιῶν) and by the Peshitto (We), which accordingly corroborate 
our proposed explanation of the difficult π ἡ Ψ .—For the rest, 


the verse is obscure; in fact this very obscurity may have led to 
the writing of the ania gloss that later, by its insertion into 





1 The > in n93 is lengthened in pause. 
fr 
2 The Greek, with its τὸ τρίτον τῆς Ναφεθά, has mistaken the phrase as a 
town name, and is of no assistance in determining the true meaning of the 
expression. Ἷ 





History of Dor. 51 


the text, greatly added to the difficulties. But whatever may be 
the correct reading of the rest of the passage, the explanation given 
for mw ou is apparently the only one that will really account 
for its presence in the verse. 

That the above interpretation of the occurrence of ni neous 
in Josh. 17:11 is correct is rendered still more sure by the study of 
a similarly obscure phrase in Isaiah 65:7. Here at the end of the 
verse we read; ΡΠ 2Y TTIW pny 25. The conclud- 
ing phrase of the preceding verse (65:6) reads: ὉΠ Sy Jala “a 
In some manuscripts there must have been variation in, or doubt 
about, the reading of the preposition. (The form Sy of our M.T. 
is obviously a combination of the two readings DN and SY). Con- 
sequently, some scribe seems to have placed in the margin opposite 
verse 7 a note calling attention to the fact that the undoubted read- 
ing of verse 6, the ‘‘ first” (πο occurrence of the phrase, was 
ΡΠ oy. When this gloss, viz. Sy TINT, was transferred 
from the margin into the text, the vowel of the 9X which already 
stood there was carefully preserved. 

In each of the three cases discussed above (i. e., Josh. 17:11, 
Ezek. 21:19 and Is. 65:7), the recognition of the gloss ‘first 
time” or ‘‘ third time ” solves a riddle which has seemed insoluble. 
Cases of the insertion of the similar gloss ‘‘ second time” (2) 7) 
are already well known; see for example the commentators on 
Ezekiel 4:6. 

A comparison of the Hebrew of Josh. 17:11 and Judg. 1:27 
reveals the fact that the former has one name (viz. 7"t 1) more 
than the latter. Nor does Endor appear in 1 Chron, 7:29. In 
the Peshitto of Josh. 17:11, Endor has actually displaced Dor. 
Together with Jibleam it is omitted in the Greek (A) of the verse 
in Joshua’. Inasmuch as Endor lies considerably north of the rest 
_ of this line of border towns, and the textual evidence for it is so 
poor, it probably has no place at all in this list. It would seem 
that in some early manuscript Dor was written defectively. This 
led to the conjecture that Endor was meant, which thus crept into 
the text as an additional name. Some later reader decided, and 








1 Τῦ is barely possible that ’Edwp of B* >» ™s may represent the name.—The 
B-text also omits Taanach. These omissions in the Greek are probably 
accidental. 


52 George Dahl, 


rightly, that Naphath Dor was meant; his conjecture is preserved 
in ps7 nw ow at the close of the verse. In view of the proba- 
Hilities. and of the evidence against its originality, we must reject 
a nes from Josh. 17:11. 

Of the three passages cited (i.e. Josh. 17: 11-13; Judg. 1:27, 28 
and 1 Chron, 7:29) the one in Judges is in all probability the 
oldest and most historical. Apparently the notice in Joshua has 
been borrowed from that in Judges and has been modified to some 
extent. To fit the later theory of the tribal domains, the Joshua 
passage introduces the ‘‘ correction: ” WRI Tawi. Just 
what this theory in regard to the settlements of the tribes was, it is 
impossible for us, in view of the confused and conflicting state- 
ments regarding it, to determine. That Judg. 1:27, 28 is the 
older and better account is further indicated by the fact that it 
bluntly states that Manasseh did not drive out the inhabitants of 
these cities (which, according to 2:1b-5a, they could have done 
had they obeyed Jahweh’s commands), while Josh. 17:12 softens 
this down and lessens their guilt by declaring the children of 
Δ ΑΜΆΒΘΕΝ were not able to dispossess them. In the retention in 
Josh. 17:11 of the accusative ΓΝ and of uv) from Judg. 
1:27 raed they fit into the construction as they do not at all in 
the Joshua passage) there is added evidence for the dependence of 
Josh. 17:11-13 on Judg. 1:27, 28. 

The list of boundaries of Manasseh in 1 Chron. 7:29 agrees in 
content but not in form with Josh. 17:11’. It would appear that 
the Chronicler has rearranged the names he found in the other two 
passages, so that the order followed by him is the correct geograph- 
ical one, with Dor last. To change (with Moore and Budde) the 
arrangement of the towns in Josh. 17:11, Judg. 1:27, so as to 
follow the geographical order is hardly justifiable. Both passages 
place Dor third in the list, and the gloss FDI Aw Iv corroborates 
this order. The Taanach...... Jibleam order of Judg. 1:27 may 
have been corrected by the one who borrowed the verse in Josh. 
17:11. Dov’s position in both passages may be due to a doubt as 
to which Dor was meant (cp. Endor in Josh. 17: 11). It would 





1 As explained above, Jibleam is not given by the Chronicler (Hebrew) 
though it is represented in the Greek by Bata(a)0. 

2. Ancient lists of towns are often in very irreguiar order. See on Judith 
2:28 below, p. 55. 





History of Dor. 53 


appear that the account in Judges belongs to the J. strand of 
narrative, and that Josh. 17: 11 is borrowed from this account. 

The cities mentioned in these passages form a line stretching 
from Bethshean on the east to Dor on the west. Bethshean (mod. 
Beisan) is situated at the eastern end of the Great Plain. Jibleam 
has been identified with the modern Bel‘ameh, south of Genin’, 
others place it northwest of Bethshean, the modern Yebla’. 
Taanach (mod. Ta‘annuk) lies west of Bethshean and northwest of 
Bel‘ameh. Megiddo is northwest of Taanach, at the modern Leggiin. 
This chain of fortified cities separated the tribes of Joseph from 
their brethren struggling for a foothold in Galilee to the north. 

ὈΝῚ in Josh. 17:12, Judg. 1:27 contains the idea of determin- 
ation, and the clause may be translated ‘‘ persisted in dwelling (or 
remaining)”*®. The Hebrew text of Judg. 1: 27is quite irregular in 
its use or omission of mu” and ΓΔ. The reference in Josh. 
17:13; Judg. 1:28, to the time when Israel become strong (Lt) 
is probably to the times of David. We have no satisfactory proof 
that the city of Dor ever came into his power, although in 1 Kings 
4:11 the whole region of Naphath Dor is assigned to Ben-Abinadab, 
Solomon’s son-in-law’. Df) refers to the working gangs. 

Thus, according to the accounts of Josh. 17: 11-13; Judg. 1:27, 
28 and 1 Chron. 7:29, Dor is one of the border cities of Manasseh, 
whose Canaanite inhabitants maintained possession of their cities 
at the time of the Hebrew invasion. Later, it is claimed, these 
inhabitants were put to task-work by their Hebrew conquerors. It 
may be doubted whether the Hebrews ever secured more than a 
brief suzerainty (if even that) over the people of remote Dor. The 
frank statement that ‘‘they by no means expelled them” indicates 
that the town remained Canaanite. As for Dor, it was far away 
in Philistine or Phoenician rather than in Hebrew territory, and 
therefore in a position to maintain its freedom. 


JUDGES 1:31. 


The Greek of Judges 1:31 includes Dor among the cities 
assigned to Asher which remained unconquered. The verse reads 


(A-text) : 








1 Moore, Budde. 

*G.A.S., Hist. Geog., Maps I, VI. 

3 B.D.B. s.v. ΣΝ; Moore on the passage. 
4 See below. 


54 George Dahl, 


: : ἘΞ 5 ; A 
(13) καὶ “Aonp οὐκ ἐξῆρεν τοὺς κατοικοῦντας ᾿Ακχώ, καὶ ἐγένετο αὐτῷ εἰς 
/ Ν ‘\ A \ Ν Ν cal lal Ν Ν 
φόρον, καὶ τοὺς κατοικοῦντας Δὼρ καὶ τοὺς κατοικοῦντας Σιδῶνα καὶ τοὺς 
Ἂ ; > Ν ; > 
κατοικοῦντας. Δαλὰφ καὶ Tov ᾿Ασχενδεὶ και τὴν Sxediav καὶ τὴν ᾿Α φὲκ καὶ τὴν 


ἹῬοώβ. 


In the Massoretic text Dor does not appear. None of the ver- 
sions except the Greek seem to have it’. The textual evidence for 
the genuineness of the citation of Dor in this place is, therefore, very 
poor. In all probability the name is an insertion into the Greek 
based on the passage in Josh. 17:11, where Dor is mentioned 
among the enclaves of Manasseh in Issachar and Asher*. Both 
Moore and Budde comment on the absence in the Hebrew of Tyre, 
which lies between Accho and Sidon; this is the very position 
occupied by Dor in the passage. It is, of course, barely possible 
that there was present in the original Hebrew the name VS; but 
of this we have no proof. In view of the faulty character of the 
Greek text of Judges and of the evidence of free redaction in it, 
we must consider it probable that the inclusion of Dor in the Greek 
of 1:31 is the word of an editor’s hand. In any case it adds 
nothing to the information contained in the passages already 
discussed. 

1 wines 4:11. 


1 Kings 4: 7-19 contains a list of twelve victualling officers of 
Solomon, placed over ‘‘all Israel.” Fourth in this list appears 
(verse 11) the name of Ben-Abinadab, in charge of ‘‘all Naphath 
Dor:” 


TN? Ὁ FO ΠΡ "3 ADO INT 193-99 2152 TS 0 


Translation: ‘* Ben-Abinadab, all the Height of Dor; (Taphath, 
the daughter of Solomon, was his wife.)” 

The Greek reads (A)’: 
τ Walton’s Polyglot. 

2. The verse Josh. 17:11 is based, as indicated above, on Judg. 1:27, which 
also names Dor and precedes the passage now under discussion by only 
three verses. Probably these verses are all connected with one another, at 
least in the mind of the Greek translator. 

ὅ The text of B in this verse is hopelessly confused and corrupt; it is 
another illustration to prove how poor is the document Swete chose as his 
basic text. 





History of Dor. 55 


(11) υἱοῦ ᾿Α βιναδὰβ πᾶσα Nepadddp, Ταφατὰ θυγάτηρ ΤΟΝ τοῦ ἣν αὐτῷ 
εἰς γυναῖκα (BKE® add εἷς). 


Whether 222 Ν 3 and the other names in this list compounded 
with Ben are surnames like Ben-Hadad’ in 1 Kings 20, or whether 
the proper names originally preceded Ben and were later accident- 
ally dropped, is uncertain. In the Greek, υἱοῦ should become υἱός. 
The εἷς which appears at the end in many good manuscripts may 
point to an original TAS as in Josh. 12:9 ff. 

The mention of sons-in-law of Solomon in this section points to 
a period somewhat advanced in his reign. However, considering 
the evident fact that the whole tendency of 1 Kings 3-11 is to 
magnify Solomon and his reign, we may well doubt the historicity 
of these reputed divisions of his kingdom. Again, as has already 
been said, it can hardly be put down as certain that Solomon’s 
realm really included the remote district of Dor, located as it is in 
debatable territory lying between Philistia and Phoenicia. It is, 
however, true that Biblical tradition is consistent in ascribing to 
Solomon a greater extent of territory than was held by any other 
Hebrew ruler. If ever the ‘‘ height of Dor” belonged to Israel, it 
was at that time. The passage does not seem to be from the oldest 
strand of the narrative of the Books of Kings; very likely it was 
from some other historical work editorially included in the book’. 


JUDITH 2:28. 

In the book of Judith, following the account of Holofernes’ 
punitive ravages in the plain of Damascus, the terror inspired by 
him in the coast cities is described as follows (Judith 2:28 (18), 
A Text): 

Xo» 4. ,ὔ Ν « , 3 an > ἊΝ Ν ~ Ν ,ὔ΄ 
και €7TECEY O φόβος καὶ ὁ τρομος αὐτου ἐπι TOUS κατοικουντας τὴν παραλίαν, 

AS 4 > lal ἈΝ > 4 Ν Ν lal ‘ NP 12, / Ν 
τους OVTAS ἐν Σιδῶνι και €V Τύρῳ, και TOUS κατοίκουντας Σοὺρ και Οκεινά, και 
πάντας τοὺς κατοικοῦντας ᾿Ιεμνάαν, καὶ οἱ κατοϊκοῦντες ἐν ᾿Αζώτῳ καὶ ᾿Ασκά- 


λωνι ἐφοβήθησαν αὐτὸν σφόδρα. 


(28) ‘‘And the fear and dread of him fell upon them that dwelt 
on the sea coast, upon them that were in Sidon and in Tyre, and 





1 Gray (Prop. Names, pp. 73f.) explains the form of these names on the 
theory that, like Ben-Hadad, some or all of these officers were foreigners. 
* So Stade in S.B.0.T. 


56 George Dahl, 


upon them that dwelt in Dor and Accho, and upon all that dwelt in 
Jamnia; and they that dwelt in Azotus and Ascalon feared him 
exceedingly.” 

After ᾿Ασκάλωνι, δὲ. H.-P. X, 58. Syr. Old Lat., read καὶ Γάξῃ. 
It is quite possible that Gaza stood in the original text. For 
Ὃκεινά, N* and H.-P. 19, 108 read Κινναιους. But the town-name 
better fits the context. ὈὈκείνά is, as most commentators agree, 
Accho (= Ptolemais), a haven north of Carmel. 

For the third town in the list, the B-text reads ᾿Ασσούρ, of which 
"Ao is merely the repetition of the final letters of the preceding κατ- 
oxovvtas. The reading of &*, Toup, is perhaps influenced by the pre- 
ceding Τύρῳ. The Syriac with +e” evidently renders a Greek name 
written with o. Lohr (in Kautzsch’s Apokryphen), following Ball 
(in Wace’s Apocrypha) and Ewald’, interprets the form as an acci- 
dental repetition of the foregoing Τυρῳ, (=Cor.). Fritzsche rightly 
rejects Ewald’s suggestion as being quite improbable, and fixes 
instead upon ἽἸΠΠ as the city here referred to. He argues that the 
locality speaks strongly for his interpretation; and that Dor and 
Accho are so close to one another that the fact that the names have 
exchanged places in the list is quite without significance. It should 
be remarked in this connection that ancient writers, even in strictly 
geographical treatises, are by no means careful to preserve the cor- 
rect geographical order in their lists of cities’. It is, besides, open 
to question whether the writer of the book knew much about 
the relative positions of the northern coast cities; he might easily 
have made the mistake through ignorance. Even if the original 
order of towns in this verse was the correct one, the later faulty 
writing of the name of Dor as Σουρ and of ‘Akko as ’Oxewa would 
have caused confusion; perhaps this led to the transposition of Dor 
to its present position after Tyre*, As far as the form Σουρ is con- 
cerned, it would appear that in some cursive manuscript 6 was 
written so much like o that dwp was read as wp. Inasmuch as the 





1 Gesch. des V. Israels, III, 2, p. 544. 

2 Cp. the varying order of cities in Josh, 17:11 and Judg. 1:27 above; see 
also Bibl. Geog. Arab. VII, p. 327, line 7 (Jubail, Saida, Beirut); p. 329, 2 ff. 
(Caesarea, Jamnia, Jaffa): 2R53, No. 4, lines 55-58 (discussed below), gives 
the order : Samaria, Damascus, Dor, Megiddo. 

8 Τῷ 15 not at all impossible that the transposition took place under the 
impression that Love was actually a doublet to Τυρῳ. 











History of Dor. δὴ 


confusion of ὦ and ov is ἃ very common phenomenon, the variation 
between Zovp and Δωρ is easily explained. 

The date of the composition of Judith is generally placed in the 
second century B.C. It is a romance with its setting in the times 
of Nebuchadrezzar. As such it has little or no historical value. 
The principal value of this notice consists, therefore, in its indica- 
tion that in the second century B.C. the writer recognized in Dor 
one of the coast towns important enough to merit enumeration in a 
list of the larger cities of the region. 


THE ESHMUNAZAR INSCRIPTION AND DOR. 


The Eshmunazar inscription (Lines 18-20) states that the ‘‘ Lord 


of Kings”, in return for assistance rendered, presented Dor and 
Joppa to King Eshmunazar II of Sidon as a perpetual possession. 


The text of the inscription reads :' 
. 222. ΓΝ. 75. 0 TWY 18. 
ΟΦ TD δ. TINT. JIT ISIN 9D. ἽΝ «ΤΟΝ 19. 
03350". Moy. ΝΟ nosy. ΠῚ 
DIY). DIT? - 03337. PAN. 93). My 20. 


18. ‘‘ Furthermore, the Lord of Kings gave to us Dor and 
Joppa’, the glorious lands of Dagon which are in the field of 
Sharon, in recognition of the assistance which I rendered; and we 
joined them to the territory of the land, to belong to the Sidonians 
forever.” 

The date of this inscription is variously stated as the fourth or the 
third century B.C., i.e., either in the Persian or in the early Greek 
period, The argument for the date has usually depended on the 
interpretation of the expression ‘‘ Lord of Kings” (0559 ΓΝ. 
It is urged* that this is a Ptolemaic title and that the inscription 
must therefore be dated about the middle of the third century B.C. 
Schlottman* on the other hand refers to the Persian custom of 
rewarding with gifts of cities those rulers who had served Persian 
interests in some special manner. He therefore dates the inscrip- 
tion in the period of Persian prosperity, perhaps during the time of 
the wars with Greece. Schiirer’, on the basis of Scylax’ A@pos πόλις 
Σιδονίων", decides that the inscription must certainly be placed in 
the Persian period. His contention is that the transfer of Dor to 





i 0. 1.8.1, 3; Lidzbarski, Taf. IV:2. 

° Hilprecht (Explorations in Bible Lands, pp. 615 ff.) makes the incorrect 
statement that ‘‘ Eshmunazar extended the boundaries of Sidon by the 
conquest (sic !) of Dor and Joppa.” 

° HE. Meyer in Enc. Bib., 3762 f., s.v. Phoenicia; Cooke, North Semitic 
Inscriptions, p. 40. 

4 Die Inschrift Eschmunazars, pp. 48 ff. 

5 6,00. IL, 199. 

ὁ Geographi graect- minores, ed. Miller, I, 79. 


τσ ὦ πω σύννουν. σὰν, ας, αν 


at ὧν τον. 


History of Dor. 59 


Sidon which Scylax’ statement presupposes is the one referred to 
here by Eshmunazar. Inasmuch as Scylax lived about 350 B.C.', 
Eshmunazar must be dated in the period of Persia’s supremacy. 
This argument of Schiirer seems to have considerable weight. The 
counter-argument based on the usage of ‘‘ King of Kings” by the 
Persians instead of ‘‘Lord of Kings” is not decisive. The latter 
title was used of Alexander’ and others, and may well have been 
applied to the Persian overlord. 

The excavation of the temple of Eshmin at Sidon possibly 
throws some light on the question of the date of Eshmunazar II. 
According to the report of Macridy-Bey*, a first temple was 
destroyed and another built in its place. This second temple was 
in its turn demolished, not later than the latter half of the third 
century B.C. The date of the building of the second temple 
Macridy-Bey, on the basis of fragments of architecture found 
there, places in the latter half of the fourth century B.C. The 
destruction of the first temple he therefore dates about the middle 
of the same (i.e., the fourth) century. It must therefore have 
been built at least as early as the first half of the fourth century 
B.C. More convincing still is the discovery, amongst the debris 
from the first temple found under the pavement of the recon- 
structed temple, of a votive inscription in basalt upon which were 
engraved several lines in hieroglyphic script giving the name of 
Ak’horis, an Egyptian King of the 29th dynasty (393-381 B.C.) 
This would bring the probable date of the first temple back to the 
5th century. Now the inscriptions of King Bod-ashtart were 
found imbedded in the core of the north wall of the reconstructed 
temple’. They were so placed in the inside of the wall that they 
could neither be seen nor read, and evidently consisted of stones 
from the old temple used in rebuilding the later one. These 
inscriptions, therefore, probably belonged to the first temple and 
are to be dated not later than the early fourth century B.C. Inas- 
much as Bod-ashtart belongs to the same generation as Eshmun- 
azar 11 (both being grandsons of Eshmunazar I), Eshmunazar II 





1 Schiirer, /.c.; Gutschmid, Kleine Schriften, ΤΙ, 77. 

2 E.g., in the Umm-el-‘Awamid inscription (O.I.S. I, 7; Cooke, p. 44). 

3 Le Temple d’Echmoun ἃ Sidon (Fouilles du Musée Impérial Ottoman), 
pp. 19 ff. 

4 Tbid., pp. 32-34. 


60 George Dahl, 


should probably likewise be connected with the first temple, and 
his inscription dated in the early fourth century. When this 
evidence is taken in connection with the testimony of Scylax (dis- 
cussed above) we have fairly strong presumptive evidence that 
Eshmunazar (and the inscription) antedates the Greek period and 
should be dated during the period of Persian domination. This 
tentative conclusion does not, of course, exclude the possibility 
that further discoveries in Syria may cause us to decide in favor of 
another date for this inscription. 

(7 in line 19 has been variously translated as ‘‘ corn” and as the 
god ‘* Dagon.” We know that Dagon was worshipped among the 
Philistines’. Joppa lies well toward Philistia, and Dor, as indi- 
cated above, was settled by the Takkara related to the Philistines. 
There is, therefore, every possibility that at this time Dagon’ was 
also the god of Joppa and Dor, and that the inscription means to 
indicate that these regions were within the realms of that god. 

The use of the adjective ATTN may give some slight indication 
that [Tis to be interpreted as the name of the god. In both 
Hebrew and Phoenician, WN has the meaning ‘‘ majestic”, ‘‘ glo- 
rious”’*, and is very frequently used as an epithet of divine beings 
(6. g. in C.Z.S. 118, and in the cry of the Philistines in 1 Sam. 
4:8). Compare also such common Phoenician names as SPp3IIN ὃ 
In line 16 of this same (i. 6. Eshmunazar) inscription the word is 
used in the phrase OV N ODL (‘Glorious Heavens”), which 
apparently designated the hilly district where the temples of the 
gods were built®. Cooke (North Semitic Inscriptions, p. 38) says 
of the adjective here: ‘‘The idea of expanse is contained in the 





' Moore in Enc. Bib., p. 983: Paton in Hast. Enc. of Rel. and Ethics, s.v.; 
Schrader in Riehm’s Handwérterbuch. 

2 It seems most probable that Dagon is related to the Babylonian god 
Dagan (so Moore, Paton, Schrader, E. Meyer in nc. Bib., s.v. Phoenicia). 
It would appear that this god was found in the land by its Philistine, etc. 
conquerors and adopted by them. The name Dagon is probably connected 
with [21 (=corn), for he seems to have been both in Babylonia and Canaan 
a god of agriculture. On a seal he has the emblem of an ear of corn (Paton, 
l.c.). On the other hand it is still possible that the name comes from δ, 


‘* fish” (so Schrader, J. c.; Meyer, Gaza, pp. 115 ff.). 

3 B.D.B.,s.v.; Siegfried und Stade, s.v.; so also in New Hebrew, cp. Jas- 
trow, Dict. of Targ., s.v. 

4 Torrey in J.A.O.S., vol. 23 (1902), p. 163; vol. 24 (1908), pp. 214 ff. 


History of Dor. 61 


root; so VN is suitably applied to the wide corn-lands of 1) ". 
It seems much more probable that the choice of the adjective is due 
to the presence of the divine name, Dagon. This agrees with the 
usual connotation of VIN. The use of this particular adjective 
here is, of course, very precarious evidence for the worship of 
Dagon in Dor at the time of the Eshmunazar dynasty; and yet its 
possible value must be admitted’, 





1 Neubauer (Géog. Talm., p. 13) translates : ‘‘ pays du Dagon adoré” with 
the note: ‘‘ Laracine |X se trouve plusieurs fois dans cette méme inscrip- 
tion avec le sens ‘adorer’.’”’ While he has correctly perceived that the 
adjective has probably been chosen with reference to the mention of the 
god, he has no sufficient warrant, either in this inscription or elsewhere, for 
translating it ‘‘adoré.” The grammatical form forbids this and requires 


that FIN be read with AYN. 


EARLY GREEK WRITERS. 
HECATAEUS. 

That Dor was not unknown to the Greeks in early times is evi- 
denced by the citation from Hecataeus of Miletus in Stephan of 
Byzantium’. Hecataeus, who lived ὁ. 500 B.C., is quoted as fol- 
lows (from his περιήγησις) : “Exatatos ᾿Ασίᾳ: “ μετὰ δὲ ἡ πάλαι Adpos, 
νῦν δὲ Δῶρα καλεῖται." 

‘« Hecataeus in (section on) Asia: ‘And next comes ancient Doros, 
now, however, called Dora’.” Ξ 

But the change from Doros to Dora occurred long after the time 
of Hecataeus’. It seems, therefore, that the version of Hecataeus 
used by Stephan of Byzantium had been added to by interpolation. 
We have no reason to doubt, however, that Hecataeus knew and 
mentioned Dor. 


CRATERUS. 


to the Athenians during the period of Athen’s hegemony in the 
Mediterranean (fifth century B.C.). This claim is based on the 
assumption that Dor in Caria mentioned by Stephan of Byzantium‘ 
is really the Phoenician Dor. The passage from Stephan reads as 


It has been argued by some’ that Dor was for a time tributary | 


follows: 
ἔστι καὶ Καρίας A@pos πόλις. ἣν συγκαταλέγει ταῖς πόλεσιν ταῖς Καρικαῖς 


Κρατερὸς ἐν τῷ περὶ ψηφισμάτων τρίτῳ “ Kapixos φόρος Δῶρος, Φασηλῖται.᾽᾽ 


“There is also a city of Caria named Doros, which Craterus’ in 
the third book of his treatise ‘Concerning Decrees’ records among 
the τ δης ΘΕ (as follows): ‘Carian tribute: Doros, the 
Phaselians’. 

Phaselis, the city named with Dor as on the Carian tribute- ee 
was situated on the Lycian-Pamphylan border. These provinces 





1 Steph. Byz. s.v. Aopoc; Miller, Fragm. hist. graec., I, 17, n. 260. 

2 See chapter on the name Dor; Schiir., G.J.V., I, pp. 188 f. 

3 See Cooke, Ene. Bib., s.v. Dor ; Schiir., G.J.V., ΤΙ, pp. 188 ff. 

ον, Δῶρος, 

° Greek historian of the third cent. B.C. (Smith, Dict. oF Gr. and Rom. 
Biog., 5...) 


History of Dor. 63 


are far from our Dor, and it would require much more conclusive 
evidence than has yet been brought forward to establish a probabil- 
ity that we are to look south of Mt. Carmel for the city named by 
Craterus’. It may be that settlements of Greek Dorians in Caria 
led Craterus to speak of a city Doros that had no real existence. 
It is far more probable, however, that the Dorians actually had in 
Caria a city Doros, since the name is not uncommon. It seems 
best, therefore, to reject the assumption that Phoenician Dor is 
intended in the passage under discussion. 


APOLLODORUS. 
Apollodorus, an Athenian grammarian who lived c. 140 B.C.’, is 
quoted by Stephanus Byzantinus’ as follows: 
᾿Απολλόδωρος δὲ Δῶρον καλεῖ ἐν Χρονικῶν δ΄ “ εἰς Δῶρον οὖσαν ἐπιθαλάτ- 


τιον πόλιν. 


“And Apollodorus mentions Dor in the fourth (book of his) 


Chronica: ‘To Dor which is a maritime city.’ ” 


ARTEMIDORUS OF EPHESUS. 


From Artemidorus of Ephesus, a geographer who wrote c.103 
B.C., we have a fragment in which Dor is mentioned in connection 
with Strato’s Tower (later Caesarea) and Mt. Carmel. The pas- 
sage reads’: 

καὶ ᾿Αρτεμίδωρος Δῶρα τὴν πόλιν οἶδεν ἐν ᾿ἘΠπιτομῇ τῶν ιά “ Συνεχῶς δ᾽ ἐστὶ 
Στράτωνος πύργος, εἶτα ἔνι Δῶρα ἐπὶ χερσονησοειδοῦς τόπον κείμενον πολισ- 
μάτιον. ἀρχομένου τοῦ ὄρους τοῦ Καρμήλου." καὶ ἐν θ΄ γεωγραφουμένων τὸ 
αὐτό. 

‘“‘And Artemidorus is acquainted with the city Dor in_ his 
Epitome book 11: ‘And adjacent is Strato’s Tower, then comes 





1 Kohler, Urkunden u. Untersuch. zur Gesch. des delischattischen Bundes 
(Abhandlungen der Berliner Akad., 1869), p. 207, cites from another Athen- 
ian tribute-list Kedévdepic (on the Cilician coast opposite Cyprus) to prove 
that Athenian influence reached far towards Syria. But this city is too 
remote from the Phoenician Dor to establish his contention. 

2 Enc. Brit. s.v. Apollodorus. 

3 Ed. Meineke, s.v. Δῶρος. 

4 Steph. Byz., l.c.; C. Miller, Geog. Graec. min., I, 576, Fragm. 18 (from 
Marcian of Heraclea). 


64 George Dahl, 


Dora, a small town situated upon a peninsula, near the beginning 
of Mt. Carmel.’ And in the ninth book of the Geography the 
same,” 

ALEXANDER EPHESIUS. 

In his geographical poem, Alexander Ephesius’, a contemporary 
of Cicero (106-43 B.C.), joins Joppa and Dor in one of his lines. 
Stephanus Byzantinus’ cites as follows: 

καὶ ᾿Αλέξανδρος ἐν ᾿Ασίᾳ “Adpos T ἀγχίαλός τ᾽ Ἰόπη προύχουσα θαλάσσης." 

‘‘And Alexander in the section, ‘Asia’*: ‘Both Dor bordering 
on the water and Joppa jutting forth into the sea.’ ” 





1 Called Λύχνος; Knaack in Pauly-Wissowas Enc. s.v. Alexander Ephesius, 
n. 86. 

2 Quoted in Meineke, Analecta Alexandrina, p. 374. 

3 The geographical poem was divided into three parts, ᾿Ευρώπη, ’Acia and 
Λιβίη. 


HISTORY OF DOR DURING THE GREEK, MACCABEAN 
AND ROMAN PERIODS. 


POLYBIUS, HISTORIAE 5: 66. 

In the course of his early campaigns against Ptolemy Philopator 
of Egypt, Antiochus ΠῚ (‘‘the Great”) besieged Dor without 
result. The strength of the place and the reénforcements sent 
by Nicolaus, together with the approach of winter, made him 
abandon his attempt. This was in the year 219 B.C. Polybius 
thus records the incident’: 

᾿Αντίοχος δὲ συνεσταμένος πολιορκίαν περὶ THY καλουμένην πόλιν Δοῦρα", καὶ 
περαίνειν οὐδὲν δυνάμενος διὰ τε τὴν ὀχυρότητα τοῦ τόπου καὶ τὰς τῶν περὶ τὸν 
Νικόλαον παραβοηθείας, συνάπτοντος ἤδη τοῦ χειμῶνος, συνεχώρησε ταῖς παρὰ 
τοῦ Πτολεμαίου πρεσβείαις ἀνοχάς τε ποιήσασθαι τετραμήνους καὶ τῶν ὅλων εἰς 
πάντα συγκαταβήσεσθαι τὰ φιλάνθρωπα. .. .. ταῦτα δ᾽ ἔπραττε, πλεῖστον 

\ oe an 39 ΄ , N Ἀ ν ΄ > A a 
μὲν ἀπέχων τῆς ἀληθείας - σπεύδων δὲ μὴ πολὺν χρόνον ἀποσπᾶσθαι τῶν 
3 “4 ΄ °° > ΕΣ a ΄ὔ ΄, Ν [ον ΄ 
οἰκείων τόπων, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τῇ Σελευκείᾳ ποιήσασθαι τὴν τῶν δυνάμεων παραχει- 


΄ 
μασίιαν. 


“ But Antiochus had begun a siege against the city named Dor, 
and could accomplish nothing because of the strength of the place 
and because of the reénforcements they received from Nicolaus’. 
Since winter was already drawing near he agreed with the ambas- 
-sadors of Ptolemy (Philopator) to observe an armistice of four 
months duration and to enter into friendly relations in everything 
that concerned the war. And this he did although he was far 
from sincerity in the matter. He was eager, rather, not to be long 
separated from his own lands, but instead to pass the winter with 
his troops in Seleucia.” 

Whether Dor fell into Antiochus’ hands the following year 
(218 B.C.) on his way to the defeat at Raphia is not recorded. 








1 Historiae, 5:66, ed. Biittner-Wobst 11, p. 185f.; Reiland, Palaestina, p. 
744; cp. Noris, Annus et Hpochae Syromacedonum, on Polyb., V:66; 
Schiirer, IT, 139. 

2Jn Δοῦρα, ot is, as remarked above, simply the confusion of ov with o, a 
common phenomenon. 

3 An Aetolian, one of Ptclemy’s generals (Polyb. 5:61, 68, 70). Later he 
fights with Antiochus the Great against Arsaces (Polyb. 10:29). 


TRANS. Conn. AcCApD., Vol. XX. 5 1915. 


66 George Dahl, 


Probably it became subject to him for a time after his victory at 
Paneas in the year 198 B.C.’. 


1 MACCABEES 15; ANTIQUITIES ΧΙ, 7:2. 


Dor was again besieged in 139-8 B.C., by Antiochus VII 
(Sidetes). Trypho, who had ruled since his assassination of 
Antiochus VI (Dionysus) in 142 B.C., and had by his excessive 
luxury and caprices alienated even his troops, had been obliged to 
flee before Antiochus Sidetes to Dor for refuge. The siege was 
raised, however, when Trypho in some way managed to escape 
from the city. First Maccabees 15: 10-14; 25-27; 37; 39c¢ reads’: 


ἊΣ an “ an 3 
10. ἔτους τετάρτου καὶ ἑβδομηκοστοῦ καὶ ἑκατοστοῦ ἐξῆλθεν ᾿Αντίοχος εἰς 
an “ , lal fol “ 
τὴν γῆν τῶν πατέρων αὐτοῦ, καὶ συῆλθον πρὸς αὐτὸν πᾶσαι αἱ δυνάμεις, ὥστε 
> Ν 
ὀλίγους εἶναι σὺν Τρύφωνι. 11. καὶ ἐδίωξεν αὐτὸν ᾿Αντίοχος ὃ βασιλεύς, καὶ 
3, “ 
ἦλθεν εἰς Δωρὰ φεύγων τὴν ἐπὶ τὴν θάλασσαν. 12. ἤδει γὰρ ὅτι ἐπισυνῆκται 
>? SEEN ΄ NSA ΣΝ ε ΄ \ ΄ 2 ΄ 
ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν κακά, καὶ ἀφῆκαν αὐτὸν αἱ δυνάμεις. 13, καὶ παρενέβαλεν ᾿Αντίοχος 
5 Ν ΄ Ν δ ΕΣ Lal , ΄ 3 A Leal Ν 3 4 
ἐπὶ Awpa, καὶ σὺν αὐτῴ δώδεκα μυριάδες ἀνδρῶν πολεμιστῶν Kal ὀκτακισχιλία 
ἵππος. 14. καὶ ἐκύκλωσεν τὴν πόλιν, καὶ τὰ πλοῖα ἀπὸ θαλάσσης συνῆψαν ’ 
‘ / ‘\ / > Ν Lal lel x 5 Ἂς ipl ΄ὔ Ν 3 4 
καὶ συνέθλιβεν τὴν πόλιν ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς θαλάσσης, καὶ οὐκ εἴασεν 
- 3 
οὐδένα ἐκπορεύεσθαι καὶ εἰσπορεύεσθαι. 25. ᾿Αντίοχος δὲ 6 βασιλεὺς παρενέ- 
B λ ᾿ς Ἂν Δ ΟὟ ἐν τῇ ὃ έ ΄ὔ ὃ Ν Ν > “ X Lal ‘\ 
αλεν ἐπὶ Awpa ἢ δευτέρᾳ, προσάγων διὰ παντὸς αὐτῇ τὰς χεῖρας καὶ 
% , Ν / Ν ΄ὔ “ 9 ΄ Ν 3 
μηχανὰς ποιούμενος, καὶ συνέκλεισεν τὸν Τρύφωνα τοῦ εἰσπορεύεσθαι καὶ ἐκπο- 
ρεύεσθαι. 26. καὶ ἀπέστειλεν αὐτῷ Σίμων δισχιλίους ἄνδρας ἐκλεκτοὺς συμ- 
Lol > aA \ > ΄ Ἂν a \ oe e , Ν > > 4 
μαχῆσαι αὐτῷ Kal ἀργύριον καὶ χρυσίον καὶ σκεύη ἱκανά. 27. Kal οὐκ ἠβούλετο 
> Ν , 3 ‘\ > 4 ΄ ΄ > 4 3 a Ν / ον 
αὐτὰ δέξασθαι, ἀλλὰ ἠθέτησεν πάντα ὅσα ἐσυνέθετο αὐτῷ τὸ πρότερον, καὶ 
i ae Ἀ : 
ἠλλοτριοῦτο αὐτῷ. 37. Τρύφων δὲ ἐμβὰς εἰς πλοῖον ἔφυγεν εἰς ᾿Ορθωσῶν. 


890, ὁ δὲ βασιλεὺς ἐδίωκε τὸν Τρύφωνα. 


10. ‘‘In the one hundred and seventy fourth year (i.e. of the 
Seleucid era=Oct. 139 B.C.—Oct. 138 B.C.) Antiochus (Sidetes) 
went forth into the land of his fathers: and all the forces came 
together to him, so that there were (but) few men with Trypho. 
11. And Antiochus the king pursued him, and he came in his flight 
to Dor which is by the sea. 12. For he knew that evils were 
gathered together against him, and that his forces had forsaken 





1 Moss in Hast., D.B. I, p. 105, s.v. Antiochus IIT. 

3 Swete Ii, pp. 657-9 (A-text).------ The genuineness of the closing chap- 
ters of 1 Maccabees has been questioned by Destinon, Wellhausen, and 
others. For convincing arguments on the other side see Torrey in Enc. Bib., 
III, 2863-5; Ezra Studies, pp. 148 ff. 


aoe Sas a. ye 


History of Dor. 67 


him. 13. And Antiochus encamped against Dor and with him 
were 120,000 warriors and 8000 horse’. 14. And he surrounded 
the city, and the ships joined in the attack from the sea; and he 
worried the city by land and sea, and allowed no one to go out 
or in.” 

(Vv. 15-24 record the return of Numenius and the embassy which 
Simon had sent to Rome.) 

25. ‘‘But Antiochus the King encamped against Dor on the 
second (day)’, continually bringing his forces up to it, and making 
engines of war, and he shut up Trypho so that he could neither go 
in nor go out. 26. And Simon sent him 2000 picked men to fight 
with him; and silver and gold and many implements. 

27. And he would not receive them, but set at naught all the 
covenants he had made with him before, and was estranged from 
him.” 

(The king sends to Simon to demand a tribute of 500 silver 
talents, and is enraged when this is refused: vv. 28-36.) 

37. ‘* But Trypho embarked on a ship and fled to Orthosia.” 

(Vv. 38, 39 ἃ Ὁ: The king commands Cendebaeus to attack the 
Jews.) 

39c. ‘*But the king pursued Trypho.” 

Josephus’ account (Ané. XIII, 7: 2) differs in several particulars 
from that contained in 1 Maccabees’. 


΄ δ᾽ ἐ “ > λ ΄ e ? A , \ a > ΄ > A Ν a 
γενόμενος δ᾽ ἐν TH Zedevkeia. ὁ ᾿Αντίοχος, καὶ τῆς ἰσχύος αὐτῷ κατὰ πᾶσαν 
ε ΄ » ’ὔ -“ 4 \ 4 ‘\ , > ἴον “ 
ἡμέραν αὐξανομένης ὥρμησε πολεμήσων τὸν Τρύφωνα, καὶ κρατήσας αὐτοῦ TH 
μάχῃ τῆς ἄνω Συρίας ἐξέβαλεν εἰς τὴν Φοινίκην, διώξας ἄχρι ταύτης, εἴς τε 
Δώραν φρούριόν τι δυσάλωτον ἐπολιόρκει συμφυγόντα. πέμπει δὲ καὶ πρὸς 
,ὔ Ν lal 4 9 , \ ΄ὔ ἈΝ , 4 ε Ν 
Σίμωνα τὸν τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἀρχιερέα περὶ φιλίας καὶ συμμαχίας πρέσβεις. ὃ δὲ 
δέ θύ ὑτοῦ τὴν ἀξίωσιν, καὶ ” Ἢ τε πολλὰ Kal τροφὴν 
προσδέχεται προθύμως αὐτοῦ τὴν ἀξίωσιν, χρήματά τε πολλὰ καὶ τροφὴ 


nm Ν , A , / \ 3 / 3 θό 
τοῖς τὴν Δώραν πολιορκοῦσι στρατιώταις, πέμψας πρὸς Αντίοχον, ἀφθόνως 





1 The numbers are doubtless exaggerated. 

2 Fritzsche, I, p. 227; Kautzsch, I, p.78; Fairweather, p. 252; Wace supplies 
πολιορκίᾳ, and translates ‘‘for the second time,” or ‘‘in the second siege.” 
It is better to consider this a redactional resumption of the narrative of the 
siege described in vv. 13, 14, which had been interrupted by the account of 
the return of the embassy in vv. 15-24. 

3 Text from ed. Naber.... The parallel passage in B.J., I, 2:2 is much 
briefer, mentioning simply Simon’s assistance during Antiochus’ siege of 
Dor, and Antiochus’ ingratitude afterward. Its source is the same as that 
of the passage in Ant. 


68 George Dahl, 


> Δ « a 5 ,ὔ 5 \ Ν 5 / Ν Lal / 
ἐχορήγησεν, ὡς τῶν ἀναγκαιοτάτων αὐτὸν πρὸς ὀλίγον καιρὸν κριθῆναι φίλων. 
6 μὲν γὰρ Τρύφων ἐκ τῆς Δώρας φυγὼν εἰς ᾿Απάμειαν καὶ ληφθεὶς ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ 
πολιορκίᾳ διεφθάρη, βασιλεύσας ἔτη τρία. 


“As Antiochus was now come to Seleucia, and his forees 
increased every day, he marched to fight Trypho; and having 
beaten him in the battle, he ejected him out of Upper Syria into 
Phenicia, and pursued him thither, and besieged him in Dora, 
which was a fortress hard to be taken, whither he had fled. He 
also sent ambassadors to Simon the Jewish high priest, about a 
league of friendship and mutual assistance: who readily accepted 
the invitation, and sent to Antiochus great sums of money and 
provisions, for those that besieged Dora, and thereby supplied 
them very plentifully, so that for a little while he was looked 
upon as one of his most intimate friends: but Trypho fled from 
Dora to Apamea, where he was taken during the siege, and put 
to death, when he had reigned three years’.” 

(In the following section Josephus relates that afterward Antio- 
chus forgot the assistance Simon had rendered, and sent Cendebeus 
to ravage Judea and seize Simon. Simon was able, however, to 
defeat the forces sent against him, ) 

According to Josephus, then, the armies of Trypho and Antio- 
chus Sidetes first fought a pitched battle in Upper Syria in which 
Antiochus was victorious. Trypho then fled to Dor and was 
besieged there. Contrary to the representation in 1 Maccabees 
(where Sidetes refuses to accept Simon’s voluntarily proffered gifts 
and assistance), Josephus relates that the Syrian king requested 
and gladly received from Simon both money and _ provisions. 
Instead of following 1 Maccabees in making Orthosia Trypho’s 
destination, Josephus names Apamea. THe also adds the statement 
that at Apamea Trypho was taken in a siege and put to death. 
Still another statement of Trypho’s destination is given by 
Charax’, who says he fled to ‘‘Ptolemais, called Ake;” as 
follows: 

καὶ Xdpak ιά “Tpvdwv ἐν Adpw τῆς κοίλης Συρίας πόλει πολιορκούμενος 
ὑπ᾽ ᾿Αντιόχου ἔφυγεν εἰς Πτολεμαΐδα τὴν ΓΑκην λεγομένην." 





1 Following in general Margoliouth’s revision of Whiston’s translation. 

2 Steph. Byz. (ed. Meineke, p. 254), s.v. A®poc; also in Miller, Frag. hist. 
graec. III, 644 n. 40. Cp. Fritzsche, I, 229. Charax probably lived during 
the reign of Hadrian and the Antonines. 


History of Dor. 69 


*‘And Charax (in book) 11, ‘ Trypho, being besieged in Dor, a 
city of Coele-Syria by Antiochus, fled to Ptolemais, called Ake.’” 

The attempt to harmonize these variant accounts by making 
Trypho go first to Ptolemais, then to Orthosia and finally to 
Apamea’, is neither reasonable nor convincing. Evidently there 
were in existence several differing and conflicting accounts of what 
became of Trypho. Schiirer* holds that Josephus used 1 Macca- 
bees as his main source here, but that he freely changed some of 
the details from some Greek writer, probably Polybius. Hélscher’ 
classes this passage with the other ‘‘Syriaca” and assigns them all to 
Strabo, who, he alleges, in turn found his material in Polybius 
and Posidonius. Destinon* believes that Josephus’ source for this 
passage was a writer who had already composed a narrative out of 
1 Maccabees and some Greek writer. Inasmuch as the closing 
chapters of 1 Maccabees as they now stand seem to be original’, 
it is probable that Josephus worked over the material contained in 
them with the aid of material from some Greek historian. In any 
case, whatever the process of fusion and relation of documents in 
these passages may have been, it is the clear testimony of our 
sources that Trypho was actually besieged in Dor by Antiochus 
Sidetes and that he somehow escaped from that city. 


ANTIQUITIES ΧΠῚ, 12:2, 4. 


Soon after the beginning of the reign of Alexander Jannaeus 
(104-78 B.C.), Dor is mentioned by Josephus in connection with 
Alexander’s plan of bringing the coast cities under his sway. Dor 
and Strato’s Tower (Caesarea) were held at this time by a tyrant 
named Zoilus’. When Alexander started his campaign by besieg- 





1 Fritzsche, I, 229: Wace, 11, 527; Schiirer, G.J.V. I, 253. 

3 Hauck-Herzog, Enzyk., s.v. Josephus. 

3 Die Quellen des Josephus. 

4 Margoliouth (Revision of Whiston’s Josephus), Introd., p. XVII. 

5 See note above, p. 66. 

5 Clermont-Ganneau (Recueil d’Archéologie orientale, V, 1908, pp. 285-8) 
gives an epitaph from a stone found at Dor dating from the year 169-170 
A. D., which gives a feminine form, Zoila. The inscription reads: ZoAa 
ἐνθαδε KeiTac ἐτων τριάκοντα gdiAavdpoc. TA’ ᾿Απελλαίου xc. θαρσει. ““ Here lies 
Zoila (aged) thirty years, loving her husband. Year 233, the 26th (of the 
month) Apellaeos. Courage!” It is interesting to note that this name per- 
sisted in Dor into the second century A.D. Cler-Gan. suggests that the 
tyrant Zoilus may have introduced the name into the Onomasticon of the 
place. 


70 George Dahl, 


ing Ptolemais, Zoilus assisted that city. Forced by the weakness 
of the rival Syrian kings (Antiochus VIII [ Philometer]', and Antio- 
chus Cyzicenus) to look abroad for further assistance, the inhabi- 
tants of Ptolemais sent to Ptolemy Lathyrus, who had shortly 
before fled from Cleopatra, his mother, from Egypt to Cyprus. 
The ambassadors from Ptolemais promised the Egyptian that 
Zoilus would unite with them in loyalty to him (Jos., Ant. XIII, 
12: 2). 

The fickle inhabitants of Ptolemais, however, refused to receive 
Ptolemy when he arrived. But Zoilus and the people of Gaza 
came instead asking help against the Jews, who were ravaging 
their country. In fear of Ptolemy, Alexander thereupon aban- 
doned the siege of Ptolemais. Craftily sending for Cleopatra to 
come against Ptolemy, Alexander at the same time concluded a 
league of friendship with him, promising four hunded talents of 
silver if he would dispose of Zoilus and give his country to the 
Jews. Ptolemy gladly made a league with Alexander, and turned 
upon and subdued Zoilus’. Afterward, however, when he learned 
that Alexander had planned to betray him into Cleopatra’s power, 
he broke his solemn covenant and started to lay waste Alexander’s 
domain, besides starting a siege against Ptolemais (Ant. XIII, 
12:3, 4). Just what disposition was finally made of Dor during 
these troublous times after Zoilus was ‘‘subdued ” is not clear. 

The passage (Ant. XIIT, 12:2, 4) reads: 

Καταστησάμενος δὲ τὴν ἀρχὴν ὃν ᾧετο συμφέρειν αὐτῷ τρόπον στρατεύει ἐπὶ 


Πτολεμαΐδα, τῇ δὲ μάχῃ κρατήσας ἐνέκλεισε τοὺς ἀνθρώπους εἰς τὴν πόλιν καὶ 





1In Ant. XIII, 9:3; 10:1; 18:4 he is called Antiochus Grypus. H6lscher 
(Die Quellen des Josephus, p. 39) shows that this variation is due to the use 
of different sources, probably by Strabo. 

2In view of Ptolemy’s repudiation of their agreement upon learning of 
Alexander’s double-dealing, it may be doubted whether Dor was finally 
actually delivered to the Jews. At least Dor is omitted from the list (con- 
tained in Ant. XIII, 15:4) of cities subject to Alexander, although Strato’s 
Tower (Caesarea), its neighbor on the south, is mentioned. On the other 
side must be adduced the evidence of Ant. XIV, 4:4 (parallel to B.J., I, 
7:7—see below), where Dor is included among the cities taken from the Jews 
and restored to freedom as part of the province of Syria. Josephus’ notori- 
ously uncritical use of his sources (as well as his personal bias) complicates 
exceedingly the problem of deciding what actually is or is not fact in any 
given case. 


History of Dor. 1 


’ὔ > Ν 3 / a Ν 3 aA ,ὔ i > ~ \ 
περικαθίσας αὐτοὺς ἐπολιόρκει. τῶν yap ἐν TH παραλίᾳ Πτολεμαὶς αὐτῷ καὶ 
Τάζα μόναι χειρωθῆναι ὑπελείποντο, καὶ Ζώιλος δὲ ὃ κατασχὼν τὸν Στράτωνος 

lol ~ 3 “ aA 
πύργον τύραννος καὶ Δῶρα. τοῦ δὲ Φιλομήτορος ᾿Αντιόχου καὶ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ 
a a an a 
αὐτοῦ ᾿Αντιόχου, os ἐπεκαλεῖτο Κυζικηνός, πολεμούντων ἀλλήλους καὶ THY αὐτῶν 
> 3 aA > a 
δύναμιν ἀπολλύντων ἦν οὐδεμία τοῖς Πτολεμαεῦσιν βοήθεια παρ᾽ αὐτῶν. ἀλλὰ 
fe “ ΄ 72 ε Ν 4 ΄ \ iol 
πονουμένοις TH πολιορκίᾳ Ζώιλος ὃ τὸν Στράτωνος πύργον κατεσχηκὼς [παρῆν] 
καὶ τὰ Δῶρα σύνταγμα τρέφων στρατιωτικὸν καὶ τυραννίδι ἐπιχειρῶν διὰ τὴν 
τῶν βασιλέων πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἅμιλλαν μικρὰ τοῖς Πτολεμαιεῦσι παρεβοήθει " 
> Ν Ν ε a τ 5 3 s Ν 2 ΄ ἰκὰ x 9 ΄ Ν 3 
ὀυδὲ γὰρ οἱ βασιλεῖς οὕτως εἶχον οἰκείως πρὸς αὐτούς, ὥστ᾽ ἐλπίσαι τινὰ παρ 
an as Ge x aN ~ 3 a " 7 al ΄ 
αὐτῶν ὠφέλειαν. ἑκάτεροι γὰρ ταὐτὸν τοῖς ἀθληταῖς ἔπασχον, οἵ τῇ δυνάμει 
μὲν ἀπηγορευκότες αἰσχυνόμενοι δὲ παραχωρῆσαι διετέλουν ἀργίᾳ καὶ ἀναπαύσει 
ὃ , Ν > A Ν > > “ 3 ‘\ aN «ε Ν lal ΄ 
ἰαφέροντες τὸν ἀγῶνα. λοιπὴ δ᾽ αὐτοῖς ἐλπὶς ἦν ἣ παρὰ τῶν Αἰγύπτου βασι- 
A aA aA fol 
λέων καὶ τοῦ Κύπρον ἔχοντος Πτολεμαίου τοῦ Λαθούρου, os ὑπὸ τῆς μητρὸς 
lol A > 
Κλεοπάτρας τῆς ἀρχῆς ἐκπεσὼν εἰς Κύπρον παρεγένετο. πέμψαντες οὖν πρὸς 
aA a a 3 “ 
τοῦτον οἱ ἸΠτολεμαιεῖς παρεκάλουν ἐλθόντα σύμμαχον ἐκ τῶν ᾿Αλεξάνδρου χειρῶν 
> \ Give ΄ 3 ΄ 3 oN “ ΄ ε 
αὐτοὺς ῥύσασθαι κινδυνεύοντας. ἐπελπισάντων δ᾽ αὐτὸν τῶν πρέσβεων, ὡς 
διαβὰς εἰς Συρίαν ἕξει Γαζαίους συνεστῶτας μετὰ τῶν Πτολεμαιῶν καὶ Ζώιλον, 
3 a 
ἔτι ye μὴν Σιδωνίους καὶ πολλοὺς ἄλλους αὐτῷ συλλήψεσθαι λεγόντων, ἐπαρ- 


\ x ν oF 4 
θεὶς πρὸς τὸν ἔκπλουν ἔσπευδεν. 


(Then follows in 12:3 the account of a change of heart on the 
part of the inhabitants of Ptolemais and their decision to have 
nothing to do with Ptolemy. Although he learned of this, Ptolemy 
came straight on and pitched camp near the city. But when the 
people would have nothing to do with him, he was at a loss what 
to do.) 


XIII, 12:4. ἐλθόντων δὲ πρὸς αὐτὸν Ζωίλου τε καὶ τῶν Γαζαίων, καὶ δεομέ- 
νων συμμαχεῖν αὐτοῖς πορθουμένης αὐτῶν τῆς χώρας ὑπὸ τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων καὶ 
ΕἸ a 
᾿Αλεξάνδρου, λύει μὲν πολιορκίαν δείσας τὸν Πτολεμαῖον ὃ ᾿Αλέξανδρος, ἀπαγα- 

ῃ μι Pos, Ύ 
A be δὰ Ν 3 Ν 3 ’, 3 ΄ Ν ’, λ 10 Ν Ν K 
yov δὲ τὴν στρατιὰν εἰς τὴν οἰκείαν ἐστρατήγει TO λοιπόν, λάθρᾳ μὲν τὴν Κλεο- 

4 ΟΝ Ν Cal ΄ὔ a Ν 4 Ν a 
πάτραν ἐπὶ τὸν Πτολεμαῖον μεταπεμπόμενος, φανερῶς δὲ φιλίαν καὶ συμμαχίαν 

Ν 53) Ν c / Ν / 3 9) ΄΄ ΄ὔ , (. YZ 
πρὸς αὐτὸν ὑποκρινόμενος - Kal τετρακόσια δ᾽ ἀργυρίου τάλαντα δώσειν ὑπέσ- 

΄ὔ > ἰδ 4 fy or / > \ / Ν ΄ὔ Ν 

XETO, χάριν ἀντὶ τούτων αἰτῶν Ζωίλον ἐκ ποδὼν ποιήσασθαι τὸν τύραννον καὶ 
Ν vA “Ἢ 3 ὃ 4 lal / Ν s ε i “" “e ΄ ‘\ 

τὴν χώραν τοῖς ᾿Ιουδαίοις προσνεῖμαι. τότε μὲν οὖν ὁ Πτολεμαῖος ἡδέως τὴν 
> na uA . 

πρὸς τὸν ᾿Αλέξανδρον ποιησάμενος φιλίαν χειροῦται τὸν Ζωίλον, ὕστερον δ᾽ 
ἀκούσας λάθρᾳ διαπεμπό ὑτὸ ὃς τὴ goa αὐτοῦ Κλεοπά Av 

ρᾳ μπόμενον αὐτὸν πρὸς τὴν μητέρα αὐτοῦ Κλεοπάτραν, λύει 

A ΄ x aN μὲ Ν λ 3 , Ν 
τοὺς γεγενημένους πρὸς αὐτὸν ὅρκους, καὶ προσβαλὼν ἐπολιόρκει τὴν {{τολε- 


μαΐδα μὴ δεξαμένην αὐτόν... .. 


XIII,12:2 ‘* When he (i. e., Alexander Jannaeus) had arranged 
the government in the way he considered most advantageous for 


72 George Dahl, 


himself, he made an expedition against Ptolemais; and having con- 
quered in a battle he shut up the men in the city, and sat round 
about them and began a siege. For, of the cities on the coast, 
there alone remained to be conquered by him Ptolemais and Gaza, 
besides the tyrant Zoilus who held Strato’s Tower and Dor. Now 
inasmuch as Antiochus Philometer and his brother Antiochus, who 
was called Cyzicenus, were waging war against one another and 
destroying one another’s armies, the people of Ptolemais could get 
no aid from them, But when they were in distress on account of 
the siege Zoilus, who possessed Strato’s Tower and Dor and main- 
tained a body of soldiers, and acted as tyrant because of the contest 
between the kings, came and brought a little help to the people of 
Ptolemais. Nor indeed were the kings so friendly disposed toward 
them that they could hope for any succour from them. For both 
were in the same predicament as wrestlers who, though they have 
become deficient in strength, are yet ashamed to yield, and so con- 
tinue lazily and prolong the contest by resting. Their sole remain- 
ing hope was in the kings of Egypt, and from Ptolemy Lathyrus 
who was holding Cyprus, and who came to Cyprus after being cast 
out from his rule by his mother Cleopatra. The people of Ptole- 
mais therefore sent to this man and besought him to deliver them, 
endangered as they were, out of the hands of Alexander. And 
since the ambassadors held forth hopes to him that when once 
he had crossed over into Syria he would have the people of Gaza 
joining with those of Ptolemais; and as they also said that Zoilus 
and the Sidonians besides and many others would assist him; he 
was elated and hurried the preparations for sailing.” 

(The people of Ptolemais decide. not to receive Ptolemy. He is 
greatly concerned.) 

12:4. ‘* But when both Zoilus and the people of Gaza came to 
him and desired that he would be their ally because their country 
was laid waste by the Jews and by Alexander—Alexander, being 
afraid of Ptolemy, raised the siege. And having led away his 
army into his own country, he used strategy afterward, by secretly 
summoning Cleopatra to come against Ptolemy, but publicly pre- 
tending friendship and a real alliance with him. And he agreed to 
give four hundred talents of silver, desiring in return that he 
should put Zoilus the tyrant out of the way and allot his country 
to the Jews. And then indeed Ptolemy gladly made this league of 


History of Dor. 73 


friendship with Alexander, and subdued Zoilus; but when he after- 
ward heard that he had secretly sent to his mother Cleopatra, he 
broke the oaths he had made to him, and attacked and besieged 
Ptolemais because it refused to receive him.” 

Strabo is most probably Josephus’ source of information in this 
section. In XIII, 12:6 Josephus expressly cites Strabo and Nico- 
laus (of Damascus) as his sources. A comparison of XIII, 10:4 
indicates that, of these two, Strabo was more probably the author 
of the section XIII, 12:6 (and so of 12:2-4), concerned as they 
both are with Ptolemy’. In fact, the so-called ‘‘Syriaca” would 
all seem to belong to this writer’. Destinon*, however, holds that 
the direct use of Strabo and other sources by Josephus was limited 
to the passages where the name of the source is expressly cited. 
In other instances he leaves open the possibility that the anony- 
mous historian he supposes Josephus used as source may have 
utilized these authors. It appears quite probable therefore, that 
Strabo was really the source of the sections under discussion. 


ANTIQUITIES xu, 15:4. 


Dor is not included by Josephus in his catalogue of Syrian, 
Idumean and Phoenician cities held by Alexander Jannaeus toward 
the close of his career (Ant. XIII, 15:4). The list begins with 
Στράτωνος πύργον, just south of Dor, and follows the coast toward 
the south. As we have seen above, it is questionable whether the 
Jews ever exercised any real control over Dor. This in spite of 
the fact that Josephus further on in this same passage includes 
Καρμήλιον ὄρος (‘*‘ Mount Carmel”) and ἄλλας τε πόλεις προτευούσας 
τῆς Συρίας ἦσαν κατεστραμμένοι (““ other prominent cities of Syria 
which had been destroyed”). It would be unsafe to include Dor 
in the list on the basis of such uncertain generalizations by 
Josephus. It has already been suggested that there is no clear 
statement in Ant. XIII, 12:2, 4 to the effect that Dor was ever 





1 Timagenes (quoted in 12:5) was probably one of Strabo’s sources, known 
to Josephus only through the latter. 

5 Holscher, Die Quellen des Josephus, pp. 15, 89; Schtirer in Hauck-Her- 
zog, s.v. Josephus. Hd6lscher maintains (p. 40) that Polybius and Posidonius 
are in turn Strabo’s sources. For the period after 143 B.C. (and therefore 
for the time of this passage) Hédlscher believes Posidonius is the original 
source, 

3 Die Quellen des Fl. Josephus, pp. 57 ff. 


V4 George Dahl, 


turned over to Alexander. We must therefore disagree with 
Schiirer’ in his statement ‘Saber auch Dora muss zum Gebiet 
Alexanders gehort haben*.” All we can say is that there is a 
possibility that it was subject to him for a time. 


ANT, X1y, 454: aND UB dei lt 

After his capture of Jerusalem in 63 B.C., Pompey, according 
to Josephus, proceeded to take from the Jews many of the cities 
that were at that time recognized as part of their realm. He 
thereby greatly reduced the extent of Jewish territory. Dor is 
included by Josephus among the cities restored to their own inhabi- 
tants and incorporated within the Roman province of Syria. From 
Pompey’s time Dor seems, therefore, to have been directly under 
Roman rule. Josephus gives two accounts of these changes, one 
in Ant. XIV, 4:4 and a second in B.J. I, 7:7: 


Ν ἣν Ν ε 4 ε lol / ε ΄ὔ > i ἃ ὡΝ ΄ ε 
καὶ τὰ μὲν Ιεροσόλυμα ὑποτελῆ φόρον Ῥωμαίοις ἐποίησεν, ἃς δὲ πρότερον ot 

4 / > ΄΄ lal 4 ΄ 3 ΄ὔ ζ. Ν “ , 
ἔνοικοι πόλεις ἐχειρώσαντο τῆς κοίλης Συρίας ἀφελόμενος ὑπὸ TO σφετέρῳ 


“ιν & \ Ν ΄ μὴ 5: οἷς ΄ ΄ SEL, 2 Ν “ 
στρατΉγῳ EeTACEV καὶ τὸ συμπαν ἔθνος ETL μέγα προτέρον αιρόομεέενον EVTOS των 


5. 7 a , % / Ν Ν 3 lal 
ἰδίων ὅρων συνέστειλεν. καὶ Γάδαρα μὲν μικρὸν ἔμπροσθεν καταστραφεῖσαν 


> 7 ΄. ΄ a Aris ΄ 3 an \ \ ν 
ἀνέκτισεν Δημητρίῳ χαριζόμενος τῷ Γαδαρεῖ ἀπελευθέρῳ αὐτοῦ : τὰς δὲ λοιπὰς 
[χὰ “ 
Ἵππον καὶ Σκυθόπολιν καὶ Πέλλαν καὶ Δῖον καὶ Σαμάρειαν ἔτι τε Μάρισαν καὶ 
μάρ ρ 
ἂν. 19, 3 aA 
Αζωτον καὶ ᾿Ιάμνειαν καὶ ᾿Αρέθουσαν τοῖς οἰκήτορσιν ἀπέδωκεν. καὶ ταύτας 
ἐν ἐν τῇ μεσογεί. ὶς τῶ έ Τάζαν δὲ πρὸς tH θαλάττ i 
μὲν ἐν TH μεσογείῳ χωρὶς τῶν κατεσκαμμένων, Γάζαν πρὸς τῇ θαλάττῃ κα 
T , Ν AG Ἂς Ss ΄ ΄ ἃ SON ‘A ἡδι Χ 
ὄππην καὶ Δῶρα καὶ Στράτωνος πύργον, ἢ κτίσαντος αὐτὴν Ἡρώδου μεγαλο- 
πρεπῶς καὶ λιμέσιν τε καὶ ναοῖς κοσμήσαντος, Καισάρεια μετωνομάσθη πάσας ὃ 
μη ἢ Pp ἢ 


Πομπήιος ἀφῆκεν ἐλευθέρας καὶ προσένειμεν τῇ ἐπαρχίᾳ. 


“Απα he made Jerusalem tributary to the Romans, and took 
away the cities of Coelesyria which the inhabitants (of Judaea) had 
in former times subdued, and he put them under their own praetor 
and confined the whole nation which had before so greatly elevated 
itself, within its own borders. And he rebuilt Gadara, which had 
shortly before been demolished, to gratify Demetrius of Gadara, his 
freedman. And the rest of the cities, Hippos, Scythopolis, Pella, 
Dios, and Samaria, as well as Marissa, Azotus, Jamnia, and Are- 
thusa, he restored to their inhabitants: and these were in the 





1G.S.V. I, 285. 

2 Schiirer’s further statement (/.c.) that Zoilus was subdued by Alexander 
is not accurate. According to the record it was Ptolemy Lathyrus who 
subdued Zoilus. 


History of Dor. 15 


interior; as well as those that had been demolished. And also on 
the sea-coast, Gaza, and Joppa, and Dor, and Strato’s Tower; this 
last Herod rebuilt in glorious fashion and adorned it with havens 
and temples, and changed its name to Caesarea. All these Pompey 
left free and joined to the prefecture.” 

155, Dh 1 τὴ tr 

᾿Αφελόμενος δὲ τοῦ ἔθνους καὶ τὰς ἐν κοίλῃ Συρίᾳ πόλεις, ἃς εἷλον, ὑπέταξεν 
τῷ κατ᾽ ἐκεῖνο Ῥωμαίων στρατηγῷ Ϊ κατατεταγμένῳ | καὶ μόνοις αὐτοὺς τοῖς ἰδίοις 
“ ζω 3 4 Ν ᾿ Ν ΄ Ga α.3; ΄ ΄ 
ὅροις περιέκλεισεν. ἀνακτίζει δὲ καὶ Γάδαρα ὑπὸ ᾿Ιουδαίων κατεστραμμένην 
Tadape? τινὶ τῶν ἰδίων ἀπελευθέρων Δημητρίῳ χαριζόμενος. ἠλευθέρωσεν δ᾽ ἀπ᾽ 
αὐτῶν καὶ τὰς ἐν τῇ μεσογείᾳ πόλεις, ὅσας μὴ φθάσαντες κατέσκαψαν, Ἵππον 
Σκυθόπολίν τε καὶ Πέλλαν καὶ Σαμάρειαν καὶ ᾿Ιάμνειαν καὶ Μάρισαν ᾿Αζωτόν τε 
καὶ ᾿Αρέθουσαν, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὰς παραλίους Γάζαν ᾿Ιόπην Δῶρα καὶ τὴν πάλαι 
Στράτωνος πύργον καλουμένην, ὕστερον δὲ μετακτισθεῖσάν τε ὑφ᾽ Ἡρώδου 
βασιλέως λαμπροτάτοις κατασκευάσμασιν καὶ μετονομασθεῖσαν Καισάρειαν. 
ἃς πάσας τοῖς γνησίοις ἀποδοὺς πολίταις κατέταξεν εἰς τὴν Συριακὴν ἐπαρχίαν. 

Ν ἊΝ ΄ Ν Ν > 4 Ν Ν / ? ΄ \? ΄ὔ 

παραδοὺς δὲ ταύτην τε καὶ τὴν ᾿Ιουδαίαν καὶ τὰ μέχρις ᾿Αιγύπτου καὶ ᾿Βυφράτου 


Σκαύρῳ διέπειν .. .. 


“6 also took away from the nation those cities in Coelesyria 
which they had taken, and made them subject to him that had 
been appointed Roman praetor there, and shut them in to their 
own proper bounds. δ also rebuilt Gadara, that had been 
demolished by the Jews, to gratify a certain Demetrius of Gadara, 
who was one of his own freedmen. He also freed from their 
domination cities that lay in the interior, such as they had not 
previously demolished, Hippos, and Scythopolis, besides Pella, 
and Samaria, and Jamnia, and Marissa, as well as Azotus and 
Arethusa; in like manner dealt he with the maritime cities, Gaza, 
Joppa, Dor, and that which was anciently called Strato’s Tower, 
but was afterward rebuilt with most magnificent edifices by Herod 
the King, and its name changed to Caesarea. All of these he 
delivered over to their true citizens and put them under the prov- 
ince of Syria. And he committed this province, together with 
Judea and the countries as far as Egypt and the Euphrates to 
Scaurus to govern... .” 

The omission of Dios in Bellum Judaicum I, 7:7 above is proba- 
bly due to an error in copying’. It seems fairly well agreed that 





1 Destinon, Die Quellen des Fl. Jos., Ὁ». 14; Hélscher, Die Quellen des Jos., 
p. 20. δ 


George Dahl, 


Nicolaus of Damascus is Josephus’ principal source in both these 
passages’. Destinon (pp. 17 ff.) accounts for the difference (cp. the 
addition of the name ‘‘Scaurus” in B./.) on the theory that 
while Josephus used Nicolaus as his source in both the Antiquities 
and the Jewish War, he excerpted the two histories independently, 
using or omitting each time such material as he chose. Hélscher 
is inclined to find in the variations in the two accounts evidence of 
the use by Josephus of an additional source. 

As has already been suggested, the inclusion in this passage of 
Dor among the cities subject to the Jews is open to question. In 
the troublous days of party dissension that followed the death of 
the ambitious invader, Alexander Jannaeus, it is hardly probable 
that the nation could have kept control of its outlying dependen- 
cies. In the absence of definite corroboration of the details of 
Josephus’ account, we must hold in suspense a decision in regard 
to Dor’s relations to Judaea at the time of Pompey’s arrival. But 
we have no reason to doubt that Dor was made by him a so-called 
‘* free” city’. The coins of the city establish this fact beyond 
any possibility of a doubt’. 


ANTIQUITIES XIV, 5:3 AND BELLUM JUDAICUM 1, 8:4. 


In Ant. XIV, 5:3 all the manuscripts except Pal. include Δῶρα 
among the cities restored by Gabinius, the proconsul, in 57 B.C. 
The parallel passage in B.J. I, 8:4 has Δώρεος in most nianuscripts; 
but two good manuscripts read “Adwpeos. The correct reading is 
undoubtedly “Adwpa (or ᾿Αδώρεος)ὺ. The fact that it is mentioned 
along with Marisa points to the Idumean city Adora as the one 
here referred to. Niese is therefore correct in reading "Adwpa in the 
passage in Antiquities. How easily the change from Dora to 
Adora can take place is illustrated by the passage Ant. XIII, 6:5, 
where all the manuscripts read Δῶρα πόλιν τῆς ᾿Ιδουμαίας, yet where, 
as a comparison of 1 Mace. 13:20 proves, "Adwpa is clearly meant’. 





1 So Destinon, Hélscher, Schiirer, Margoliouth. 

Τὸ has been suggested above that we are none too certain that Dor was 
ever taken in possession by the Jews. 

ὃ These ‘‘free” cities were, of course, subject to military duties under 
Rome. Cp. Schiirer, G.J.V. 11, 105. 

1 ill, Greek Coins of Phoenicia, p. 117. 

5 Schiirer, G.J.V. ΤΙ, 7; Reland, Palaestina, pp. 738-741; cp. also Contra 
Ap. II, 9 below.— Perhaps the similarity in uncial script between Δ and A 
may have had something to do with the miswriting of ” Adwpa. 


History of Dor. ἢ 


In view of the fact that Dor is not included in this corrected list, 
the statement of Cook (in Ene. Bib., s.v. Dor) to the effect that 
‘¢Gabinius restored the town and harbor (56 B. C.)” must be cor- 
rected. Similarly, Guérin’s declaration (in Samarie 2:312f.) to 
the same effect is incorrect. 


ANTIQUITIES Xv, 4:1 AND BELLUM JUDAICUM I, 18:5. 


Cleopatra’s attempt to persuade Antony to deprive Herod the 
Great of his kingdom and to turn all Judea over to her was ren- 
dered ineffectual through Herod’s presents and skillful address 
(Ant. XIII, 38). Antony did, however, bestow upon her some of 
Herod’s territory about Jericho; in addition to this he gave her all 
the (coast) cities south of the Eleutherus river, except Tyre and 
Sidon. Dor would be included in this gift. The date of this ces- 
sion was ὁ. 34 B.C. With the defeat of Antony at Actium (31 
B. C.), if not before, Cleopatra’s possession of these tributary cities 
of course ceased. Augustus was shortly won over by the generous 
hospitality Herod accorded him and his army on their march 
through Syria. Arrived in Egypt, he restored to Herod the part 
of his realms taken by Cleopatra, adding thereto among others the 
coast cities Gaza, Anthedon, Joppa, and Strato’s Tower. Dor is 
not included here, and we have no reason to believe that Herod’s 
realm ever extended farther north on the coast than Caesarea. 

The account of the gift of the coast cities by Antony to Cleo- 
patra is thus recorded in Ant. XV, 4:1 (end): 


δίδωσιν δὲ Kal τὰς ἐντὸς ᾿Ελευθέρου ποταμοῦ πόλεις ἄχρις Αἰγύπτου χωρὶς 
Τύρου καὶ “Σιδῶνος, ἐκ προγόνων εἰδὼς ἐλευθέρας, πολλὰ λιπαρούσης αὐτῆς 
3 Cal a 
αὐτῇ δοθῆναι. 


““Thus he gave her the cities that were this side of the river 
Eleutherus as far as Egypt; he made exception however of Tyre 
and Sidon (for he knew they had been free cities from the time of 
their ancestors), although she frequently begged that these might 
also be given her.” 

The parallel account in B.J. I, 18:5 reads: 

πολλὰ δὲ τῆς χώρας αὐτῶν ἀποτεμόμενος καὶ δὴ Kal τὸν ἐν Ἱεριχοῦντι φοινι- 
κῶνα ἐν ᾧ γεννᾶται τὸ βάλσαμον, δίδωσιν αὐτῇ πόλεις τε πλὴν Τύρου καὶ Σιδῶ- 


BS 2 Wet) ΄ aA ΄ 
vos τὰς ἐντὸς EXevbepov ποταμοῦ πάσας. 


“Ἢ also cut off a great deal of their country; nay, even the 
palm plantation at Jericho, where the balsam grows, and gave 


78 George Dahl, 


them to her; as well as all the cities this side of the river Eleu- 
therus, Tyre and Sidon excepted.” 

Plutarch’ includes in this gift to Cleopatra, Phoenicia, Coele- 
syria, Cyprus, a large part of Cilicia, the part of Judea that bears 
the balsam, and the part of Nabatean Arabia toward the Mediter- 
ranean. 

Both passages from Josephus above are to be attributed to Nico- 
laus of Damascus as their source’. In the Antiquities (XV, 4:2, 4) 
Josephus does not state, but distinctly implies that the Jericho 
region (as in the account in B./.) was given to Cleopatra, from 
whom Herod was obliged to rent it. In these parallel narratives, 
as elsewhere, Josephus is very free in his adaptation of his sources. 

If, as seems probable, Dor is to be numbered among the coast 
cities in this! account, we gain the information that Dor was, for a 
short time after 34 Β΄, C., at least nominally tributary to Cleopatra, 
queen of Egypt. 


ANTIQUITIES XV, 9:6 AND BELLUM JUDAICUM I, 21:5. 


In connection with his account of the building of Caesarea by 
Herod the Great, Josephus mentions Joppa and Dor. These latter 
are described as smaller maritime cities, unfit for harbors because 
of the prevalence of violent winds from the south. As a conse- 
quence merchants are obliged to anchor their ships in the sea oppo- 
site them. According to Josephus it was for the purpose of pro- 
viding a safe anchorage on this inhospitable shore between Dor and 
Joppa that Herod established the port of Caesarea. The account 
in the Antiquities (XV, 9:6) reads as follows: 


κεῖται μὲν yap ἡ πόλις (1. 6., Caesarea) ἐν τῇ Φοινίκῃ κατὰ τὸν εἰς Αἴγυπ- 
’ 0 7) 

/ 317 7 Ν \ , ΄ ALE2 HBS) \ ΄ 
τον παράπλουν Ἰόππης μεταξὺ καὶ Δώρων, πολισμάτια ταῦτ᾽ ἐστὶν παράλια 
΄ ἊΝ Ν ἣν A / Cee | A > A ΄ὔ peat Ν 

π ἄς, at ἀεὶ τὰ Ὁ TOV p 
δύσορμα διὰ Tas κατὰ λίβα προσβολάς. at ἀεὶ Tas ἐκ τοῦ πόντου θῖνας ἐπὶ THY 
2. ΄ Ν 3 ὃ ὃ ΄ > 3) S25, 3 fa 3 , Ν 
ova σύρουσαι καταγωγὴν ov διδόασιν, ἀλλ᾽ ἔστιν ἀναγκαῖον ἀποσαλεύειν τὰ 
ι ? 


πολλὰ τοὺς ἐμπόρους ἐπ᾽ ἀγκύρας. 


‘This city (i. 6, Caesarea) is situated in Phoenicia, on the pas- 
sage by sea to Egypt, between Joppa and Dor, which are rather 
small maritime cities and unfit for havens, because of the violent 





1 Ant. 36. See ed. Dochner, II, Vitae 2, p. 1111. 
* So Holscher, p. 25; Destinon, p. 120. | 


History of Dor. 79 


south winds which, constantly rolling the sands that come from the 
sea upon the shores, do not permit ships to lie at their station; but 
generally the merchants are obliged to lie at anchor in the sea 
itself.” 

The parallel passage is found in B.J. I, 21:5: 

μεταξὺ yap Δώρων καὶ Ἰόπης, dv ἡ πόλις μέση κεῖται, πᾶσαν εἶναι συμβέβη- 
κεν τὴν παράλιον ἀλίμενον, ὡς πάντα τὸν τὴν Φοινίκην ἐπ᾿ Αἰγύπτου παρα- 
πλέοντα σαλεύειν ἐν πελάγει διὰ τὴν ἐκ λιβὸς ἀπειλήν, ᾧ καὶ μετρίως ἐπαυρίζοντι 
τηλικοῦτον ἐπεγείρεται κῦμα πρὸς ταῖς πέτραις, ὦστε τὴν ὑποστροφὴν τοῦ κύμα- 


3 Ν Lal 39 cas Ν }? 
τος ἐπὶ πλεῖστον ἐξαγριοῦν τὴν θάλασσαν. 


((ΕῸΣ it happened that all the coast between Dor and Joppa 
(between which the city lies) was harborless, so that every ship 
that sailed from Phoenicia to Egypt was obliged to lie in the sea 
on account of the threatening south wind; if this wind blow but a 
little fresh, such waves are raised and dash upon the rocks, that 
upon their retreat the sea rages for a long time.” 

It is worthy of notice that Caesarea is here (Ant. XV, 9: 6) 
referred to as a city of Phoenicia. The fact that Caesarea is 
called Phoenician’, and the additional fact that Greek geographers” 
make Dor a city of that same country, would tend to strengthen 
our doubt concerning any subjugation of Dor by the Jews. 
Evidently, too, the harbor at Dor was a very poor one. It was 
not until a much later period that the double harbor* was built. 
The building by Herod of good harbors at Caesarea, thus giving 
that city a great advantage as a port and gate to the surrounding 
country, doubtless contributed to the decline of neighboring Dor. 

Nicolaus of Damascus is generally conceded to be Josephus’ 
source for the material* here. As usual Josephus has made inde- 
pendent use of Nicolaus’ material in his Antiquities and Bellum 
Judaicum, so that the accounts are by no means identical. The 
narratives agree, however, in picturing Dor as a city without good 
facilities as a seaport, although evidently not without some trading 
activity. 





1For fuller discussion of the word Phoenicia, see on Contra Ap. II, 9, 
below. 

2H. g., Claudius Iolaus in Steph. Byz. 

3 See chapter on Topography. 

4 Destinon, p. 120; Hélscher, p. 26. 


80 George Dahl, 


ANTIQUITIES XIx, 6:3, 4ac. 

Toward the beginning of the reign of Agrippa I (41-44 A. D.) 
we learn of the existence of a Jewish synagogue in Dor. A mob 
of young men carried a statue of Caesar into this synagogue and 
set it up there. Agrippa had of course no authority in Dor, which 
had remained under the rule of the Roman governor of Syria. — 
Accordingly, he complained to Publius Petronius, who was then at 
the head of affairs in the province of Syria’. According to 
Josephus’ story, Petronius thereupon wrote a letter to the magis- 
trates of Dor, reminding them of the liberties granted to the Jews 
by Claudius, and commanding them to discover and punish those 
eulty of this act of impiety. This letter, together with the record 
of the incident, is contained in Ant. XIX, 6:3, 4a: 

παντάπασιν δὲ ὀλίγου χρόνου διελθόντος Δωρῖται νεανίσκοι τῆς ὁσιότητος 
προτιθέμενοι τόλμαν καὶ πεφυκότες εἶναι παραβόλως θρασεῖς Καίσαρος ἀνδριάντα 
κομίσαντες εἰς τὴν τῶν Ιουδαίων συναγωγὴν ἀνέστησαν. σφόδρα τοῦτο Αγρίππαν 

, a γ᾽ ν “ ΄ὔ im ~ / ἐδ mA > \ δὲ Ν 
παρώξυνεν * κατάλυσιν γὰρ τῶν πατρίων αὐτοῦ νόμων ἐδύνατο. ἀμελλητὶ δὲ πρὸς 
Πούπλιον Πετρώνιον, ἡγεμὼν δὲ τῆς Συρίας οὗτος ἦν, παραγίνεται καὶ καταλέγει 
τῶν Δωριτῶν. ὃ δ᾽ οὐχ ἧττον ἐπὶ τῷ πραχθέντι χαλεπήνας, καὶ γὰρ αὐτὸς ἔκρι- 
νεν ἀσέβειαν τὴν τῶν ἐννόμων παράβασιν, τοῖς προεστῶσι τῶν Δωριτῶν σὺν 
ὀργῇ ταῦτ᾽ ἔγραψεν. ,, ἸΠούπλιος Πετρώνιος πρεσβευτὴς Τιβερίου Κλαυδίου 
Καίσαρος Ξεβαστοῦ Γερμανικοῦ Δωριέων τοῖς πρώτοις λέγει. ἐπειδὴ τοσαύτῃ τόλ- 

> / Ἂν ΟΣ ΄ ΡΞ. rn ov δὲ ὃ Ν Ν lol / 
μῃ ἀπονοίας τινὲς ἐχρήσαντο ἐξ ὑμῶν, ὦστε μηδὲ διὰ τὸ προτεθῆναι διάταγμα 
Κλαυδίου Καίσαρος Σεβαστοῦ Γερμανικοῦ περὶ τοῦ ἐφίεσθαι ᾿Ιουδαίους φυλάσσειν 
τὰ πάτρια πεισθῆναι ὑμᾶς αὐτῷ, τἀναντία δὲ πάντα πρᾶξαι, συναγωγὴν ᾿Ιουδαίων 
κωλύοντας εἶναι διὰ τὸ μεταθεῖναι ἐν αὐτῇ τὸν Καίσαρος ἀνδριάντα, παρανομοῦν- 
3 5 / > ΄ 3 x ἈΉΡ. \ > ΄ ἜΧΕ 19 BS ΄ 
τας οὐκ εἰς μόνους ᾿Ιουδαίους, ἀλλὰ καὶ εἰς τὸν αὐτοκράτορα; οὗ ὃ ἀνδριὰς βέλτιον 
ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ ναῷ ἢ ἐν ἀλλοτρίῳ ἐτίθετο καὶ ταῦτα ἐν τῷ τῆς συναγωγῆς τόπῳ, τοῦ 
φύσει δικαιοῦντος ἕνα ἕκαστον τῶν ἰδίων τόπων κυριεύειν κατὰ τὸ Καίσαρος ἐπέ 
κριμα - τοῦ γὰρ ἐμοῦ ἐπικρίματος μιμνήσκεσθαι γελοῖόν ἐστιν μετὰ τὸ τοῦ αὐτο- 

΄ a 7 ak 5 ΄ > ΄ AL 9a 5" a 4 
κράτορος διάταγμα τοῦ ἐπιτρέψαντος ᾿Ιουδαίοις Tots ἰδίοις ἔθεσι χρῆσθαι, ἔτι 

/ s. τ tal 7 / Ν Ν Ν δ. 
μέντοι γε καὶ συμπολιτεύεσθαι τοῖς “EAXnow κεκελευκότος * τοὺς μὲν παρὰ τὸ 
διάταγμα τοῦ Σεβαστοῦ τοιαῦτα τετολμηκότας, eh ᾧ καὶ αὐτοὶ ἠγανάκτησαν ot 
δοκοῦντες αὐτῶν ἐξέχειν οὐ τῇ ἰδίᾳ προαιρέσει γεγενῆσθαι λέγοντες ἀλλὰ τῇ τοῦ 
πλήθους ὁρμῇ, ὑπὸ ἑκατοντάρχου IpoKAov Οὐιτελλίου ἐκέλευσα ἐπὶ ἐμὲ ἀναχ- 
θῆναι τῶν πεπραγμένων λόγον ἀποδώσοντας, τοῖς δὲ πρώτοις ἄρχουσι παραινῶ, 


> Ν ΄ ὃ “- Ν Ν 3. νὰ ye a 6 Ν 30U > 
ει μη βούλονται ΟΚκέειν κατὰ τὴν αὐτῶν προαιρέσιν γεγενησ' Ql TO αοθικημα,. επι- 





ΤΡ Petronius was governor 39-42 A. D. (Riggs, Hist. of the Jewish People, 
see Chart.) 


History of Dor. 81 


δεῖξαι τοὺς αἰτίους τῷ ἑκατοντάρχῃ μηδεμιᾶς στάσεως μηδὲ μάχης ἐῶντας ἀφορ- 
μὴν γενέσθαι, ἥνπερ δοκοῦσίν μοι θηρεύεσθαι διὰ τῶν τοιούτων ἔργων, κἀμοῦ καὶ 

aA s a \ 
τοῦ τιμιωτάτου μοι βασιλέως ᾿Αγρίππου οὐδενὸς μᾶλλον προνοουμένων, ἢ ἵνα μὴ 
3 A ἕ ͵ὕ᾿ Ν an 9 ὃ - ἐθ ε Ν᾽; la} 3 hi / 
ἀφορμῆς δραξάμενοι τὸ τῶν “lovdaiwy ἔθνος ὑπὸ τῆς ἀμύνης προφάσει συνα- 

Ν 5 3 ΄ = a gy Ν ’ 53 yp Nene Ν NGG; 

θροισθὲν εἰς ἀπόνοιαν χωρῇ - ἵνα δὲ γνωριμώτερον 7, τί καὶ 6 Σεβαστὸς περὶ ὅλου 

ἴον ΄ 2 4 We 9 3 ip 2 a ΄ , 
τοῦ πράγματος ἐφρόνησε, τὰ ἐν ᾿Αλεξανδρείᾳ αὐτοῦ διατάγματα προτεθέντα 

4 WA 3 ἊΝ i ~ > Cal 4 Ν 3 Ν ων 4 
προσέθηκα, ἅπερ εἰ Kal γνώριμα πᾶσιν εἶναι δοκεῖ τότε Kal ἐπὶ τοῦ βήματος 
> , ε , , Ν 3 ΄ ,ὔ Ν aA Ni lal 
ἀνέγνω ὃ τιμιώτατός μοι βασιλεὺς ᾿Αγρίππας δικαιολογησάμενος περὶ τοῦ μὴ δεῖν 
YP Yn ρ 

3 Ν a a -“ aA ἢ S , 

αὐτοὺς ἀφαιρεθῆναι τῆς τοῦ Σεβαστοῦ δωρεᾶς. εἴς τε οὖν τὸ λοιπὸν παραγγέλλω 
ρ 
aA a > 5 
μηδεμίαν πρόφασιν στάσεως μηδὲ ταραχῆς ζητεῖν, ἀλλ᾽ ἑκάστους τὰ ἴδια ἔθη 
29) x Oo 

θρησκεύειν." ἹΠετρώνιος μὲν οὖν οὕτω προυνόησε διορθώσεως μὲν TO παρανομη- 


θὲ AN A ΄ θ. δὲ ΄ δὲ 3 > ΄ 
ἐν ὨΘὴ τύυχέιν, yevee αι O€ παραπλήσιον μηδέν εἰς αὐτους. 


“ Βαύ after a very little while the young men of Dor, preferring 
daring to piety and being by nature boldly insolent, carried a statue 
of Caesar into a synagogue of the Jews’ and set it up. This act 
provoked Agrippa exceedingly; for it tended toward the dissolution 
of the laws of his nation. He therefore at once came before Pub- 
lius Petronius, who was then at the head of Syria, and accused the 
people of Dor. Nor did he less resent what had been done (than 
did Agrippa). For he judged it an act of impiety to transgress 
against lawful customs. So he angrily wrote the following to the 
rulers of Dor: ‘Publius Petronius, president under Tiberius Clau- 
dius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, to the magistrates of the inhabi- 
tants of Dor, says: Since some of you have displayed such bold 
madness, after the edict of Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus 
was issued, for permitting the Jews to observe their country’s cus- 
toms, not to obey the same; but have done everything contrary to 
it, in preventing the Jews from assembling in their synagogue by 
removing Caesar’s statue and setting it up therein, and have com- 
mitted an outrage not only against the Jews but also against the 
Emperor himself, whose statue was more fitly placed in his own 
temple than in a foreign one (and this is in a place of assembly) ; 
whereas it is but natural justice that every one should have rule 
over the places that belong peculiarly. to them, in accordance with 
the determination of Caesar; not to speak of my own determina- 
tion, which it would be ridiculous to mention after the Emperor’s 





1 Cp. the command of Caligula to Petronius to set up his statue in the 
temple (Ant. XVIII, 8:2). 


TRANS. CONN. ACAD., Vol. XX. 6 1915. 


82 George Dahl, 


edict, which gives to Jews the right to observe their own customs, as 
well as commanding that they enjoy equal political privileges with 
the Greeks. I command, therefore, that those men who, contrary 
to the edict of Augustus, have dared do this thing (at which those 
very men who appear to be most prominent among them are indig- 
nant also, and allege for themselves that it was not done with their 
consent but by the violence of the multitude), be brought before 
me by the centurion, Proculus Vitellius, that they may give account 
of the things done. Furthermore, I urge the principal magis- 
trates, unless they wish to have it seem that this misdeed was done 
with their consent, to point out to the centurion those that are to 
blame, so as to furnish no occasion for any sort of uprising or 
quarrel to arise; which they seem to me to hunt after who are con- 
cerned in such doings; while both I myself and King Agrippa, for 
whom I have the sincerest respect, have nothing more under our 
care, than that the Jewish nation may not find an occasion of get- 
ting together under the pretext of avenging themselves, and 
become uncontrollable. And that it may be better known what 
Augustus also has resolved about the whole matter, I have sub- 
joined the edicts he lately published in Alexandria’, which, although 
they may be well known to all, yet did King Agrippa, for whom I 
have the sincerest respect, read them at that time before my tribu- 
nal, pleading that they ought not to be deprived of this gift which 
Augustus granted. For the time to come, therefore, I charge you 
to seek no occasion of any sort of sedition or disturbance, but that 
each one be allowed to observe his own religious customs.’ 4. 
Thus, then, did Petronius provide that the breach of the law 
already committed should be corrected, and that no such thing 
should afterward happen to them (i. e., the Jews).” 

Hdlscher’ ascribes this section of Josephus to a source which is 
concerned principally with the Herodian family, and which he 
therefore names the ‘‘ Herodiergeschichte”*. The author of this 
source he describes as a pious Jew, but with broader views than 
those of the Pharisees. This Jew in turn had as his sources pos- 
sibly Ptolemy of Ascalon, Cluvius Rufus, and state documents, in 





1 Ant. XIX, 5:2, 3. 

2 Quellen des Josephus, pp. 68, 79, 80. 

3 This source Holscher finds traces of in Ant. XIV-XVII; Ant. XVIII- 
XX he derives practically entire from it. 


| 
| 


͵ History of Dor. 83 


addition to his own general information in regard to the events 
concerned. It is probable that Josephus dealt quite freely with his 
sources in this part of the Antiquities (as elsewhere) and that we 
ought to ascribe more to his free composition than Hélscher is 
inclined to do. 

This edict of Petronius is probably the composition of some 
author used by Josephus as his source. Doubtless some such edict 
was promulgated, and the one given here isa fairly good repre- 
sentation of its general purport. Ancient historians felt free to 
compose such letters where they had no access to the original 
copies’. 

It is of interest to notice that in 42 A. D. there lived in Dor 
Jews sufficient in number to maintain a synagogue of their own. 
As in other cities in the Greek world they appear to have been none 
too popular with the citizens of the place. Agrippa I appears as 
the protagonist of the Jews in cities beyond his own realm. This 
he could do effectually because of the favor he had won with Clau- 
dius. Josephus does not give the sequel to his story; he has ful- 
filled his purpose in indicating the favorable attitude of the Romans 
toward the Jews, especially as this is illustrated in Agrippa’s rela- 
tions with the Roman governor and with the emperor. 


CONTRA APIONEM II, 9. 


Josephus (Contra Apionem II, 9) refers to a fable quoted by 
Apion from a Greek author whose name appears in manuscripts as 
Mnafeas’. This story relates how, while the Jews were at war 
with the Idumeans, a certain Zabidus came out of Dora, a city of 
Idumea. Zabidus promised to deliver Apollo, the god of Dora, into 
the hands of the Jews, and to bring the god into the temple, if 
they would all depart thence. Τὸ this the Jews agreed. There- 
upon Zabidus set three rows of lamps on a wooden frame, which 
he fastened about him. The Jews, when he passed by them at a 
distance, thought they beheld a walking star. In this way Zabidus 
gained entrance into the temple, and carried off to Dora the golden 
head of an ass that was there. 





- 1See the discussion of literary habits of ancient narrators in Torrey, Ezra 
Studies, pp. 148 ff. 

2 Niese conjectures Mnaseas, the pupil of Eratosthenes, c. 200 B.C. 
(Schir., G.J.V. II, 7). 


84 George Dahl, 


In answer to this tale, Josephus says that Apion has loaded the 
ass (that is, himself) with a burden of ridiculous lies. The first of 
these lies is his statement that there is in Idumea a city named Dor: 

καὶ yap τόπους οὐκ ὄντας γράφει Kal πόλεις οὐκ εἰδὼς μετατίθησιν - ἡ 
μὲν γὰρ ᾿Ιδουμαίι. τῆς ἡμετέρας χώρας ἐστὶν ὅμορος, κατὰ Γάζαν κειμένη, καὶ 
Δῶρα ταύτης ἐστὶν οὐδεμία πόλις - τῆς μέντοι Φοινίκης παρὰ τὸ Καρμήλιον ὄρος 
Δῶρα πόλις ὀνομάζεται, μηδὲν ἐπικοινωνοῦσα τοῖς ᾿Απίωνος φλυαρήμασι' τεσ- 


σάρων γὰρ ἡμερῶν ὁδὸν τῆς ᾿Ιδουμαίας ἀφέστηκεν. 


‘*For he writes of places that do not exist, and being unac- 
quainted with cities he changes them about. For Idumea borders 
upon our country, and is near Gaza; in it there is no such city as 
Dor. There is, to be sure, a Phoenician city near Mount Carmel 
named Dor, which, however, has nothing to do with Apion’s 
absurdities; for it is distant four days journey from Idumea.” 

Although Josephus so stoutly maintains that there is no such city 
as Dor in Idumea, it seems quite certain that Adora of Idumea is 
meant in this story. We have seen in Ant. XIV. 5:3 (parallel, 
B.J., 1, 8:4) that the initial A was easily dropped. This may have 
happened either through corruptions in texts or in popular speech. 
It seems that this town Adora is called Dura at the present time’. 

It would appear from the reference to it above that, at the time 
of the writing of the treatise Contra Apionem (i. e., c. 95 A. D.), 
Dor was known as a city, doubtless of some importance, in Phoe- 
nicia. What is here meant by ‘‘ Phoenicia” is not an easy question 
to decide, especially as the meaning of the name seems to have 
varied at different periods. In some documents of the Greek 
period the term Κόιλη Συρία καὶ Φοινίκη (‘*Coele-Syria and Phoe- 
nicia”’) is used to designate the whole Syrian district ‘‘ beyond 
(west of) the river (Euphrates)””. The boundaries between Coele- 
Syria and Phoenicia evidently varied greatly. In the last century 
B. C. Coele-Syria seems to have been ordinarily applied only to the 
district between Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon*. Hdélscher* argues 
with considerable probability that the coast cities were organised 
by the Romans soon after Pompey’s invasion into a separate official 





1G.A.8., Hist. Geog., map; Schir., G.J.V. I, 7. 

2 Torrey, Ezra Studies, p. 88.—This term is used as the equivalent of the 
Biblical WAIT VAY. 

3 Holscher, Paldstina, p. 12; Torrey, 1. 6. 

4.5503, ps 98: 


History of Dor. 85 


district, to which the name Phoenicia was usually applied. This 
may explain the frequent reference to Dor by later geographers as 
a ‘‘Phoenician” city. It must also be remembered that the Philis- 
tines seem to have been pushed to the south at an early period, and 
that the interests and connections of Dor from comparatively early 
times seem to have been with the coastland north of Mt. Carmel. 
This relationship probably even antedated the cession of Dor and 
Joppa to Eshmunazar by the Persian king’; certainly that inclu- 
sion of Dor within the domains of Sidon strengthened its Phoeni- 
cian character. The list of cities subject to Tyre and Sidon con- 
tained in Scylax’ indicates that the coast south of Carmel was in 
his time (c. 350 B.C.) essentially Phoenician. 


viTa ὃ 8. 


When Josephus was sent by the leaders in Jerusalem to take 
charge of affairs in Galilee (66 A.D.), he found the people of Sep- 
phoris in great trouble. Because of their friendly attitude toward 
the Romans and their league with Cestius Gallus, legate of Syria, 
the Galileans had resolved to plunder them. Josephus quieted the 
disturbance, and allowed the people of Sepphoris to communicate 
with their kindred who were hostages of Cestius Gallus’. The 
latter was at this time in Dor, having evidently come down from 
Antioch to quell the rebellion of the Jews ( Vita $8): 

ἀλλὰ τούτους μὲν ἐγὼ παντὸς ἀπήλλαξα τοῦ φόβου πείσας ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν τὰ 
πλήθη καὶ ἐπιτρέψας ὅσα καὶ θέλουσι διαπέμπεσθαι διὰ τοὺς ἐν Δώροις οἰκείους 


ὁμηρεύοντας Κεστίῳ. τὰ δὲ Δῶρα πόλις ἐστὶν τῆς Φοινίκης. 


“ But I delivered them out of all fear, and pacified the multitude 
in their behalf, and permitted them to send over whatever they 
wished, for their own relatives were hostages with Cestius at Dor. 
But Dor is a city of Phoenicia.” 

Whether Dor was perhaps at this time used by Cestius Gallus as 
a base of operations is not clear. In view of the fact that Caesarea, 
a few miles south of Dor, was used by the procurator of Judea as 
his capital city, it seems rather remarkable that the hostages were 
not sent there. It may be that the attack of the Jews upon 





1 See discussion of Eshmunazar inscription above. 

2 Miller, Geog. Graeci Minores, I, 79. 

5 But cp. Vita $67, where Josephus storms this city when the inhabitants 
send to Cestius Gallus for aid. 


86 George Dahl, 


Caesarea to avenge the slaughter of their countrymen there’ had 
rendered it unsafe; and that Dor, lying farther to the north, with 
pronounced anti-Jewish proclivities* and not so easily accessible 
from Jewish territory, furnished temporarily safer shelter’. Dor 
is here once more reckoned as part of Phoenicia’. 


JOSEPHUS IN STEPHAN OF BYZANTIUM. 


After referring to Hecataeus’ as his authority for the statement 
that Dor was anciently called Adpos but more recently called Δῶρα, 
Stephan of Byzantium® proceeds to cite Josephus, who illustrates 
both usages: 

Ν A > 4 3 A lal > fol ᾽ δ oe A ε ΄, 5 Ν Ν 
καὶ οὕτως Ιώσηπος αὐτὴν καλεῖ ἐν ε τῆς ᾿Ιουδαϊκῆς ἱστορίας “ ἀπὸ μὲν 
Ἰορδάνου μέχρι Δώρων πόλεως." καὶ πάλιν ““᾿Αζώτῳ καὶ Δώροις δριζόμενοι.᾽" 

\ 9. ἐξ Ὁ ΄ 3 ΄ ΄ ” Ν , cer + > Ν 

καὶ ἐν ς “εἶναι τι γύναιον ἐν πόλει Δώρῳ. καὶ πάλιν “ὅτε ἤνεγκεν εἰς τὴν 


Δῶρον. 


“«Απᾷ thus does Josephus refer to it in Book 5 of his Jewish 
History: ‘From the Jordan to the city Dora.’ And again: 
‘Bounded by Azotus and Dora.’ And in Book 6: ‘That there 
was a certain (little) woman in the city Doros.’ And again: 
‘When he brought into Doros.’” 

The first quotation given by Stephan above is.from Ant. V, 
1:22, where Josephus relates that the allotment of the half-tribe 
of Manasseh extended from the Jordan to the city Dor, with its 
breadth at Bethshan (Scythopolis). It has been shown above’ that 
the whole matter of the original territories of the various tribes is 
so confused in the various Biblical accounts that nothing can be 
definitely determined concerning it. Probably the borders were 
not fixed in early times; certainly not at the time when the tribes 
were gradually taking possession of the land. Josephus’ statement 
here is, consequently, of little value. 

The second quotation above is likewise from Ant. V, 1:22, and 
describes the limits of the territory of the Danites. This account 


MBs Wl, 18 31, 2: 

2 See Ant. XIX, 6:3, 4 above. 

8. It is always possible that Josephus’ details are not accurate, although he 
ought to be well-informed in the present instance. 

4 See Contra Ap. IL, 9 above. 

5 See p. 62. 

ὁ Ed. Meineke, 1849, p. 254. 

7 See p. 52. 





. 
. 


d 


History of Dor. 87 


also is of no particular historical value, especially in view of the 
fact that we see the Danites changing their location in the narra- 
tive contained in the Book of Judges. Both these quotations from 
Ant. V, 1:22 serve to illustrate the use of the plural form Δῶρα, 
which Stephan has just referred to (in the preceding quotation 
from Hecataeus) as the later form of Dor’s name. 

The third and fourth quotations from Josephus above are found 
in Ant. VI, 14:2. The passage deals with the visit of Saul to the 
witch of Endor, and has nothing whatever to do with Dor. The 
name should be read (with Naber) “Evdwpos’. These last two cita- 
tions (i. e. from Ant. VI, 14:2) differ somewhat from our present 
text. The former reads® εἶναι τι γύναιον τοιοῦτον ἐν πόλει Awpw. Here 
τοιοῦτον has dropped out in some way. In the latter citation, the 
texts of Naber and Niese read: ἧκεν εἰς τὴν Δῶρον. The variations in 
Stephan may be due to his carelessness, or more probably to a 
different reading in the text he had before him. The fact that the 
MSS. differ in the word preceding ἧκεν (Naber writing ὄντας and 
Niese ἄνδρας) shows that text-corruption was present here. Stephan 
apparently has an inferior reading. These last two quotations 
serve to illustrate for Stephan the use of the form Adpos. 








1 ΤῊ his critical notes on the passage (vol. II, p. VIII) Naber remarks: 
“Steph. Byz. urbs appellatur Adpoc et consentiunt R O; error est ex duarum 
urbium confusione.” Niese (vol. 2, p. 63) retains the reading Δῶρος. 

2 Naber and Niese. 


DOR IN THE TALMUD. 


Once only is Dor mentioned in the Talmud. It occurs in a list 
of frontiers of Israel, dating probably from the time of John Hyr- 
canus (135-105 B.C.) and Alexander Jannaeus (104-78 B.C.)’. 
Neubauer*® gives the various readings of the name (which occurs 
between Caesarea and Akko) as follows: 

(a) Tal de Jér., Schebiith VI:1: WWW. 
(0) Tosiftha, Schebiith, Ch. 3: ba ἢ ΚΠ] hee 
(c) Siphré, sect. Ekeb, Ala fin: WT. 
(d) Yalkout, sect. Ekeb, §674: J". 


The variations in the form of the name indicate that the texts here 
have become quite corrupt. 

In the Jerusalem Talmud, δ precedes WII. This Hilde- 
sheimer® reads with Dor and translates ‘‘die Klippe, die Héihe von 
Dor.” Neubauer’, on the contrary, maintains that NJ should be 
connected, as in the other redactions, with the preceding VW& or 
WZ and that the word should be read NOW TW (or NPV WW). In 
order that we may have the various readings of the preceding town 
(i. e., Caesarea) before us, I again quote from Neubauer’s table 
opposite p. 11, No. 2: 


(a) Tal. de Jér., Schebiith, VI:1: NW Ww OTD AN. 
(Ὁ) Tos., Schebiith,Ch. 3: (EID PT NNW ANw Iw 9739 ΠῚ. 
(c) Siphré, sect. Ekeb., Ala fin: TU VT) HNN. 
(4) Yalkout, sect. Ekeb., 8 674: jee Ὁ meni 


Here, too, there is evidently such great confusion in the readings, 
that absolute certainty as to the original text can hardly be reached. 

Neubauer connects his NYPLIWW with the old name of Caesarea, 
Στράτωνος πύργος. This in turn he derives (with Renan) from the 
Phoenician ΠΤ) TIDY.’ But RPV seems very unlike both 
the Phoenician and its derived Greek form. We cannot, therefore, 
accept his explanation as the correct one. 


' Hildesheimer, Beitrige z. Geog. Pal., p. 10. 
? La Géographie du Talmud, No. 3 on table opp. p. 11. 

8 Beitrdge, p. 10. 

4 La Géographie, pp. 11, 15. 

> Buhl (Géog., p. 211) finds in the Greek name an original Astartyaton. 





History of Dor. 89 


Hildesheimer’ translates WU S79 of the Jerusalem Talmud as 
“¢ Devils-Tower’”’, explaining it as a nickname for a town called 
after a worshipper of Astarte. Such a substitution of ‘‘ devil” for 
the name of a heathen deity is quite in accord with Jewish usage, 
and may well be the true way of accounting for WY here’. 

In connecting NI with WIT (which he reads as 7) and 
making the phrase equivalent to VJ nl, however, Hildesheimer 
probably errs. All the redactions except the Jerusalem Talmud 
connect these letters with the foregoing, and their evidence is worth 
something. It is true that ΪΦ, NY may be translated ‘‘die 
Klippe, die Héhe”*. But the word should probably be read with 
the foregoing, ‘‘ wall of Devils-Tower”’. Because of the corrupt 
text some copyist seems to have made a mistake here in repeating 
VW (or NU’); this in turn became NJ by the change of a 
single letter, J to ὃ (cp. the confusion in the other three redac- 
tions). This NJ’ was later probably connected with the word 
ΠΣ, ‘‘tower” (which may have had some resemblance to a 
tooth), and allowed to stand. We find the word NOY (also 
NII), which likewise may be translated ‘‘Klippe” (notice its 
resemblance to Nv"), used elsewhere in connection with Caesarea. 
Levy* quotes the phrase PDF NMHWS ‘con the cliff of 
Caesarea” from Num. r. sect. 18, 236 d’. The explanatory gloss, 
NDP NW (‘‘ Rock, or Cliff, of Caesarea”), in the second 
section from Tosiftha quoted above illustrates how a similar gloss 
NIU) (“Cliff”) may have been allowed to stand in the Jerusalem 
Talmud. This reference to Dor as one of the border cities of Israel 
does not mean that the city was itself included within the nation. 
The territory of the nation extended simply to Dor or its environs. 





1P.4; cp. G.A.S., in Ene. Bib. I, p. 617, s.v. Caesarea, ὃ 1. 

21. 6., WY, NY, “demon.” 

? Caesarea is called in Midrash Shir ha-Shirim 1, 5, a ‘‘ city of abomina- 
tion and blasphemy.” (Neubauer, p. 96.) 

4 Levy, IV, 582-3; originally the word means ‘‘ tooth,” then a tooth- 
shaped rock or ‘‘ cliff.” So also Jastrow, Tal. Dict. II, p. 1603. 

5 Jastrow (II, p. 1603) however accepts Hildesheimer’s arrangement and 
translation. 

6 IV, p. 547. 

Cp. also Levy, IV, p. 522. 


THE COINS OF DOR. 


The isstting of coins at Dor’ does not seem to have begun until 
after the ‘‘liberation’” of the city by Pompey in 64-63 B.C. It 
is from this date that the city dates its era’. That the attribution 
to Dor of a coin issued by Trypho (who was imprisoned there 139-8 
B. C.) was erroneous, has been demonstrated by Babelon*. On the 
basis of a duplicate of this coin and a more careful reading, he has 
shown that it should be read LA’ ASK, instead of AOP.ITE.K.A.*. 

The form of the ethnic on the coins is either AQPITON or 
AOPEITON’; one coin, owing to a dittography, has AQPIPITON. 
The other forms of the name which have been recorded are the 
result of errors of reading or of transcription®. Under Trajan, 
Hadrian and Antoninus Pius we find the title ΔΩΡιτῶν IEPa ACY Aos 
AYTONopos NAYAPXIC or merely AQPA IEPA*®, With these high- 





1 Hill, Cat’g. of Greek Coins of Phoenicia, pp. LX XIV ff., 1138-117 ; Babe- 
lon, Les Perses Achéménides, pp. CLXIX f., 205-7; de Saulcy, Terre Sainte, 
pp. 142-148 ; Head, Historia Numorum, Ὁ. 792. 

2 Josephus, Ant. XIV, 4:4; B.J. I. 7:7; see p. 74 above. 

3 Hill, p. LXXIV; Head, p. 792; Babelon, p. CLXX ; Ideler, Handbuch 
der Chronologie, I, p. 459; de Saulcy, pp. 148 f., 405; Eckhel, Doctr. Num. 
Vet. 111, pp. 362 ff.; Schtr., G.J.V. II, p. 140. Kubitschek (Archdologisch- 
epigraphische Mitteilungen aus Osterreich-Ungarn, XIII, 1890, p. 209) places 
the era between 63 and 59 B.C., and denies that Dor dated from Pompey. 
In his article ‘‘ Aera” in Pauly-Wissowa’s Real-Enz. I, Ὁ. 649f., however, 
Kubitschek is undecided as to the date.—On the basis of a doubtful read- 
ing, de Saulcy (p. 144) supposes that a single coin of Vespasian is dated 
according to the era of Gabinius. But in this he works on the mistaken 
presumption that Gabinius restored Dor (see above, p. 76). In like manner 
Kubitschek (Archiologisch-epigraphische Mitteilungen aus Osterreich- 
Ungarn, XIII, 1890, p. 209) and Hill (p. LX XV) have failed to perceive that 
Adora in Idumea is the city meant in the passages Jos., Ant. XIV, 5:3; 
Β...1, 8:4. 

* Rois de Syrie (1899), pp. CXXXIX f., 137. 

>The L before the date has usually been supposed to be an Egyptian 
character. It is more probably a fragmentary and specialized form of the 
ἘΣ of ΕΤΟΥΣ, (see Head, p. LXX XVII). 

6 Hill, l. (δ, 

7 These are, of course, equivalent forms. 

8 Babelon, Les Perses Achém., p. CLXX; Hill, p. LXXV. 

9 Hill, l. c.; Head, p. 792. 





—_ 


History of Dor. 91 


sounding titles certain privileges were bound up. The title ἱερὰ καὶ 
ἄσυλος in the Greek and Roman periods extended to whole cities 
the privilege of asylum which was originally confined to sanc- 
tuaries’. The significance of the term αὐτόνομος varies slightly at 
different periods. It is not the same as ἐλεύθερος. The ‘‘free” 
towns were almost entirely independent of Rome, while the 
‘‘autonomous” cities were not far removed in organization from 
those directly subject to the Romans. The ‘‘autonomous” cities 
were required to pay taxes and to furnish auxiliary troops upon 
demand; while in the subject cities direct levies of troops were 
made by the Roman officials. The statement in Josephus (Ant. 
XIV, 4:4; cp. B.S. I, 7:7) that Pompey had made Dor and other 
cities ἐλευθέρας implies nothing as to their relations toward Rome’; 
the statement simply indicates that these cities were freed from 
_ Jewish domination*®. The title vavapyis was conferred upon Sidon 
and Tripolis as well as upon Dor, doubtless because of their 
convenience as naval stations and because of their importance as 
the chief ports in their respective districts’. It would appear 
from this title that Dor had better harbor facilities in the second 
century of our era than the remains at present visible would 
indicate’. 

According to the tradition preserved by Claudius Jolaus® the 
eponymous founder of Dor was Doros, the son of Poseidon. It is 
probable that this hero is intended by the Poseidon-like deity 
represented on some of the coins’. On the other hand, this may 
easily be intended to represent Zeus*. Another type that fre- 
quently ‘occurs is the turret-crowned Tyche of the city. Astarte 





1Schir., G.J.V. ΤΙ, p. 105; Moore in Enc. Bib. I, pp. 877 f., s.v. Asylum ; 
Head, p. LXXX. 

2 Schiirer, G.J.V. II, pp. 104f. 

3On the whole question of the significance of the term αὐτόνομος, see 
Schir. II, pp. 104ff.; Mommsen, Handbuch der Rom. Alterthiimer, V. III, 
pt. I, 658f. (Rém. Staatsrecht); Head, p. LXXX. 

4 Head, p. LX XX; Babelon, Les Perses Achém., p. CLXX. 

5 Cp. the tradition related by Claudius Iolaus (see below p. 94) that Dor 
was provided with good harborage..... At Tyre and Sidon, similarly, 
the ancient harbors seem to have been larger and better protected than the 
ones built later. See Baedeker (2) pp. 272 ff., 278 ff. 

6 Steph. Byz. s.v. Adpoc; see pp. 94 ff. 

1 Hill, p. LXXIV; Head, p. 792. 

ὃ Babelon, Les Perses Achém., pp. 205-7; Schir., G.J.V. ΤΙ, p. 35. 


92 George Dahl, 


on many of the coins holds a naval standard; this has also been 
called a mast with a sail or a vexillum’. 

The most complete and accurate treatment of the coins of Dor 
is that by G. F. Hill, Catalogue of the Greek coins of Phoenicia, 
pp. 115-118. Some forty-three coins from Dor are listed, all 
made of bronze. Two are dated in the year 1 (LA) 1.e., 64-63 
B.C. The attribution of these two coins to Dor is not absolutely 
certain, Inasmuch as the name is abbreviated to the doubtful form 
ΔΩ, The fact that the coin next in date comes from a period one 
hundred and twenty-eight years later (64-5 A.D.) increases our 
suspicion regarding the correctness of the attribution of these coins 
to Dor. On the obverse of these two coins appears the head of 
Tyche, veiled and turreted. The reverse of the one presents Tyche 
standing, holding a cornucopia in the left hand, with the right 
hand resting on a tiller. The reverse of the other coin pictures an 
ear of barley upright. 

From the imperial period coins are listed both with and without 
the heads of emperors. Those without the emperor’s likeness date 
from 64-5 to 75-6 A.D. <A frequent type of this class represents 
on the obverse the head of Doros bearded and laureate; on the 
reverse occurs the figure of Astarte with turreted crown, long 
chiton and peplos, moving left, head right, holding a standard and 
cornucopia in the right and left hands respectively. Another 
type of coin has on the obverse a bust of Tyche, turreted and 
veiled; on the reverse appears Astarte standing with standard and 
cornucopia. A variation of this type substitutes a galley for 
Astarte on the reverse side. Again we find a coin with Doros 
obverse and Tyche reverse. 

The coins with heads of emperors date from the reign of Ves- 
pasian (69-79 A.D.) to that of Elagabalus (218-222 A.D.)?. Under 
Vespasian two coins are described, with the emperor’s head obverse 
and a standing Tyche on the reverse. Three coins of Titus are 
given, similar to the one just mentioned, except that the head of 
Titus supplants that of Vespasian. Seven coins are listed under 
Trajan, all with his head laureate, drapery on neck and a star, on 
the obverse; the reverse differs, having three times the head of 





1 Hill, 1.6. 
° De Saulcy’s description of coins of Geta and of Aquilia Severa await 
confirmation (Hill, p. LXXV). 


oe 


History of Dor. 93 


Doros, once the bust of the Tyche of the city and three times a 
standing Astarte. The obverse and reverse of the three coins of 
Hadrian portray respectively the bust of Hadrian and the head of 
Doros. Similarly the three coins of Antoninus Pius have the bust 
of the emperor and the head of Doros. The one coin of Elaga- 
balus pictures on the reverse a temple with six columns, with a 
female figure within’. 

Further finds of coins in the future will doubtless add new speci- 
mens to our collections, and will perhaps carry the history of the 
town under Rome somewhat farther. 





1 This may be the representation of some temple within the city of Dor. 


FROM CLAUDIUS IOLAUS TO HIEROCLES. 


CLAUDIUS IOLAUS. 


Claudius Iolaus, whose name would seem to indicate that he was 
of Roman origin’, is quoted by Stephan of Byzantium under Adpos. 
He wrote after the rebuilding of Caesarea’ by Herod and probably 
belongs to the first century A. D.*. His work on Phoenicia seems 
to have been a collection of historical and pseudo-historical notices. 
Of Dor he writes*: 


᾿ z a 

καὶ Κλαύδιος ᾿Ιούλιος ἐν γ΄ Φοινικικῶν “ pera Καισάρειαν Adpa κεῖται Bpa- 

Cal / ΄, 3 XN > ΄ a ὃ Ν' ει, /, A > “) ‘\ 

χεῖα πολίχνη, Φοινίκων αὐτὴν οἰκούντων, οἱ διὰ TO ὑπόπετρον τῶν τε αἰγιαλῶν Kal 
Ας ΄ὔ / if 6. Ν > a > ὃ , Ν 4 

τὸ πορφύρας γόνιμον συνέλθοντες, καλιὰς αὐτοὶς φῳκοδομήσαντο καὶ περιβαλόμε- 

ε lal Lal 

VOL χάρακας, ὡς ὑπήκουεν αὐτοὶς τὰ τῆς ἐργασίας, τεμνόμενοι TAS πέτρας, διὰ TOY 
Ν »” - 

ἐξαιρουμένων λίθων τὰ τείχη κατεβάλοντο, καὶ τὴν εὔορμον χηλὴν ὅπως [οἷόν] 

“ “ a “ “ 2 

τε ἀσφαλῶς ἔθεντο, ἐπώνυμον αὐτὴν τῇ πατριῷ γλώσσῃ Δῶρ καλοῦντες. οἱ ὃ 

Ἕλληνες, χάριν τοῦ τῆς φωνῆς εὐπροφόρου, καλεῖν ἀρκοῦντα (|. ἀρκοῦνται) Δῶρα 


Ν ΄ ΄ ε a “ Ν an > Ν 2 δι ΄ 2) 
ΤῊΝ πόλιν. και τινες ιστορουσι Δῶρον TOV ἸΠοσειδῶνος οἰκιστὴν αὐτὴς γεγονεναι. 


‘‘And Claudius Iolaus in (Book) 3 of the Phoenikika: ‘ Next to 
Caesarea lies Dor, a very small town inhabited by Phoenicians. 
These settled here because of the somewhat rocky nature of the 
beaches and the abundance of the purple-fish. At first they built 
themselves cabins, about which they placed stakes. When their 
business prospered, however, they split the rocks, and with the 
stones thus set free they built city-walls, and made a harbor with 
good and safe anchorage. They called the place in their native 
tongue Dor. But the Greeks, for the sake of its more pleasing 
sound, agree to call the city Dora. And some make the statement 
that Doros, the son of Poseidon, was its founder.’” 

It has already been suggested® that the derivation of the name 
from Poseidon’s son is simply one of the early legends of the city’; 





1 Schwartz in Pauly-Wissowa’s Real-Enz. III, 2728. 

° This is indicated by his use of the name Caesarea in the passage quoted 
below. 

Ὁ Pauly-Wissowa’s Hnz.. l.c.; Miller, Fragm. hist. graec. IV, 363. 

4 Steph. Byz., ed. Meineke, p. 255, s.v. A@poc. 

> Page 18. 

° This tradition seems to be the reason for the use of the Poseidon-like 
head on some of the coins of Dor. 


History of Dor. 95 


so also the account here of the city’s early history. Evidently the 
town was of no great size in the time of Claudius Iolaus (βραχεῖα 
modixvn—cp. Artemidorus’ “ πολισμάτιον; Clem. Recog. IV: 1’, 
“‘breve oppidum;” Pliny*, ‘‘memoria urbium.”) The city wall 
can still be traced in part among the ruins’. That the purple- 
yielding murex constituted one of the sources of Dor’s wealth is 
easily possible, for the coast in this neighborhood contains quantities 
of purple-fish®. The reference to Dor by Claudius Iolaus is inter- 
esting for the light it throws upon legends connected with the city, 
and because of the evidence it affords that early writers could even 
conceive of it as being of Greek origin. Probably its spirit and 
culture became in the later centuries B.C. essentially Greek in 
tone. 


PLINY. 


Pliny® speaks of Dor as though it were not in existence at the 
time’ he wrote: ““ Hinc redeundum est ad oram, atque Phoenicen. 
Fuit oppidum Crocodilon, est flumen: memoria urbium, Doron, 
Sycaminon.” The Crocodile River is located south of Dor*®. But 
apart from a reference in Strabo’ we have no further record of a 
city of that name. Sycaminon is in the Onomasticon” identified 
with Haifa, although the Talmud seems to regard the two as 
distinct the one from the other. Perhaps the two names were 
applied to the city proper and its harbor’. It is also possible that 
Sycaminon ought to be identified with the ruins Tell es-Semak, 
two miles distant from Haifa el-‘Atikah’’. 








1 Page 63. 

* Page 98. 

2 Below. 

4 Page 10. 

5 Enc. Bib. s.v. Dor; Ritter, Die Erdkunde, XVI, p. 610. Cp. Deut. 33:18, 
19, where Issachar is to ‘‘suck the abundance of the seas, and the hidden 
treasure of the sands.” This may refer to the purple industry. 

ὁ Hist. Nat., V, 17, ed. Gabraiels Brotier, with notes by Hardouin and 
Cigalino. 

7C. 77 A.D. 

8 See p. 7. 

9 XVI, 2, §27. 

10$.v. Hepha. 

11 Buhi, G'eog. des alten Pal., p. 214. 

2 S.W.P. Mem., I, 289.—Sycaminon has also been located at ‘Athlit. 


96 George Dahl, 


If Pliny was rightly informed by his sources, the phrase 
‘‘memoria urbium”’ would seem to indicate that Dor had been for 
a time almost or quite in ruins’. The testimony of the coins’, 
however, proves that Dor was certainly issuing coins from 64 A.D. 
down to the time of Elagabalus. Either Pliny was uninformed 
concerning the condition of Dor in his own time, or else he is 
indulging in hyperbole or loose and inexact inference. 

Strabo’ in the passage rhentioned above (i.e., XVI, 2, § 27) has 
some interesting parallels to the statements of Pliny. He says: 

μετὰ δὲ τὴν [Δκην Στράτωνος πύργος, πρόσορμον ἔχων. μεταξὺ δὲ 6 τε 
Κάρμηλος τὸ ὄρος καὶ πολιχνίων ὀνόματα. πλέον δ᾽ οὐδέν, Συκαμίνων πόλις, 


Βουκόλων καὶ ἹΚροκοδείλων πόλις καὶ ἄλλα τοιαῦτα. εἶτα δρυμὸς μέγας τις. 
p ρυμὸς μέγ 


‘“*And after Ake is Strato’s Tower, which has a harbor. And 
between these is Mount Carmel besides the names of little towns 
(and nothing more), viz., the city Sycaminoi, the cities Boukoloi 
and Crocodeiloi, and others of the same sort. Then follows a cer- 
tain great forest.” 

It is to be noticed that Strabo here omits Dor from his enumera- 
tion of πολιχνίων ὀνόματα. It may be that Dor was overshadowed by 
its greater neighbor Caesarea. Like Pliny, Strabo mentions the city 
Sycaminon as no longer in existence. If his location of this town 
is correct, it could hardly be Haifa, but more easily the ruin Tell 
es-Semak already mentioned. A city Boukoloi (=herdsmen) in this 
region is not elsewhere referred to. The fact that this passage in 
Strabo is the only other mention of a city Crocodile (as well as the 
reference to Sycaminon and the general description of the coast"), 
may point to a dependence, either direct or through the mediation 
of other writers, of Pliny upon Strabo here’. The testimony of 
these writers is worth this much at least: It indicates that at a time 
probably near the beginning of our era the coast cities in this dis- 
trict suffered a temporary eclipse. 





1 Cp. Sidon, which in 350 B.C. was captured and reduced to ashes by 
Artaxerxes Ochus. By the time of the conquests of Alexander the Great 
it was again a city of some importance. 

2 See above, p. 92. 

3 Date 63 B. C.-24 A. Ὁ. 

4 Notice that, while Pliny follows the coast from Κ΄. to N., Strabo enumerates 
the cities in the opposite direction. Boukoloi thus stands in the place of Dor. 

>This statement, in view of the rather scanty evidence, is made very 
tentatively. 


History of Dor. 97 


PTOLEMY. 
Claudius Ptolemaus, Alexandrian geographer and astronomer, 
includes Dor within the Φοινίκης θέσις, and reckons its position as 
follows’: 
Awpa és a(=4) AB yo 
“Ὁ Dor 66° 30’ 32° 40'” 


This testimony would seem to indicate that Dor was still in exist- 
ence about the middle of the second century A. D. 


CHARAX PERGAMENUS. 


Stephan of Byzantium’ quotes from Book 11 of Charax to the 
effect that Trypho, when besieged at Dor by Antiochus, fled εἰς 
Πτολεμαΐδα, τὴν "Axnv λεγομένην, ‘‘to Ptolemais, called Ake”’. Miil- 
ler* places Charax under the emperors Hadrian, Antoninus Pius 
and Marcus Aurelius (i. e., 117-180 A. D.). Charax gives us, 
however, no information concerning Dor in his own period. 


PAUSANIAS. 

In the course of his discussion of the ethnic of Dor, Stephan of 
Byzantium® quotes Pausanius as authority for the form Δωριεῖς (from 
Δωριεύς), as follows: 

Παυσανίας δὲ ἐν τῇ τῆς πατρίδος αὐτοῦ κτίσει Δωριεῖς αὐτοὺς καλεῖ τῇδε 
γράφων “Τύριοι ᾿Ασκαλωνῖται Δωριεῖς Ῥαφανεῶται,᾽᾽ ὥστε παρὰ τὴν Δῶρον 


53 (ἘΝ δ a a , 
τὸ Δώριον εἶναι, οὗ ἂν εἴη τὸ Δωριεύς, ὡς τοῦ Χήσιον τὸ Χησιεύς. 


‘‘And Pausanias in his work on his native land calls them 
Dorieis, writing thus: ‘ Tyrians, Askalonites, Dorieis, Rhaphan- 
ites;’ so that beside the feminine Doros there is a neuter form 
Dorion, whose ethnic would be Dorieus, just as the ethnic of 
Chesion is Chesieus.” 

Pausanias was a Greek traveller and author who lived in the 
latter half of the second Christian century’. Examination of his 





1 Geog. V, 15:5; ed. Nobbe. Ptolemy flourished from 127-151 A. Ὁ. 
2S.v. Adpoc ; also in Miller, Fragm. hist. graec. III, 644 n. 40. 

3 See above, p. 68. 

41. ¢., p. 636. 

5 S.v. Δῶρος. 

6 Lippincott on the name; preface to Shilleto’s translation. 


TRANS. Conn. ACAD., Vol. XX. ἢ 1915. 


98 George Dahl, 


Περιήγησις" fails to reveal the quotation Stephan pretends to give. 
The Tyrians appear elsewhere but Ascalon occurs only as a town 
name; of the Rhaphanites* there is no mention. The Dorieis fre- 
quently referred to by Stephan are not the inhabitants of Dor, but 
the Greek Dorians. It is quite possible that Stephan here quotes 
from memory, and with results most disastrous to his argument. 


THE CLEMENTINE RECOGNITIONS. 

In the pseudo-Clementine Recognitions Dor is referred to as a 
‘“breve oppidum.” This theological ‘* Tendenz-Romance ” repre- 
sents Peter and his party on their way from Caesarea to Tripolis 
as stopping overnight in an inn at Dor. On the morrow they con- 
tinue on their way as far as Ptolemais. The Latin translation of 
Rufinus of Aquileia (ἃ. 410 A.D.) reads as follows* (Book IV: 1): 

Profecti a Caesarea ut Tripolim pergeremus, apud Doram breve 
oppidum primam fecimus mansionem, quia nec longe aberat. Et 
omnes paene qui per sermonem Petri crediderant, divelli ab eo satis 
aegre habebant, sed pariter incedentes, dum iterum videre, iterum 
complecti iuvat, iterum conferre sermonem, ad diversorium pre- 
venimus, sequenti vero die venimus Ptolomaidem. 

The Recognitions are probably to be dated at the earliest in the 
first half of the third century A.D.*. Their older sources go back 
at least to the end of the second century A.D. Thus we have here 
the statement that about the year 200 (later or earlier) Dor was 
known to the writer of the Clementine Recognitions as a small 
town. 

EUSEBIUS AND JEROME. 

Eusebius (6. 275—c. 340) includes Dor in his Onomasticon® under 
the two forms Awp rot Ναφὰθ and Nadefddp, as follows: (O. 8. 
250: 56) 

Δὼρ τοῦ Ναφάθ. αὕτη ἐστὶ τῆς παραλίας Δῶρα ἡ πρὸς Καισαρείαν τῆς 
Παλαιστίνης. ἦν οὐκ ἔλαβεν ἣ φυλὴ Μανασσῆ. ὅτι μὴ ἀνεῖλεν τοὺς ἐν αὐτῇ 


ἀλλοφύλους. (Los. 11:2: 17:11, 12.) 





1 Ed. Hitzig ἃ Bluemmer; trans. by Frazer. 

5. Inasmuch as the other cities quoted are on the coast, Raphia is probably 
here meant, not Raphana of the Decapolis. 

5. Ed. Gersdorf, pp. 114f. 

4 Uhlhorn in Hauck-Herzog, Real-Enckl., art. Clementinen; T. Smith in 
Ante-Nicene Fathers, VII, p. 74. 

>» Onomastica Sacra, ed. Lagarde (2) 1887, 


History of Dor. 99 


“‘Dor of Naphath: This is Dor of the sea-coast, adjacent to 
Caesarea Palestina; which the tribe of Manasseh did not take, 
because they failed to destroy the Gentiles in it.” 

(O. S. 283:3) Ναφεθδώρ. &. ἐν τῇ παραλίᾳ Δῶρα. αὕτη ἐστὶν ἀπὸ θ 
σημείων Καισαρείας. (Los. 11:2.) 


‘*Napheth-dor: Symmachus (translates): ‘Doron the sea-coast’. 
This is nine miles distant from Caesarea.” 

Under the name Μαγδιήλ᾽ Eusebius (and after him Jerome) refers 
to the town under its shorter name; 1, e., taking it as a neuter 
plural form, he gives the genitive as Δώρων. From these references 
to the town, it would appear that Dor was in existence at the time 
Eusebius wrote’, i. e., in the early part of the fourth century. 

Between this time and the translation of the Onomasticon by 
Jerome’ (c. 390)*, however, Dor seems to have fallen temporarily 
into ruins’. In his free rendering of the passages of Eusebius 
quoted above, Jerome speaks of Dor as deserted (O.S. 115: 22): 
Dor Nafeth, quod Symmachus transtulit Dor maritima (Jos. 11:2) 
haee est Dora in nono miliario Caesareae Palaestinae pergentibus 
Tyrum, nunc deserta. quae cum cecidisset in sortem tribus Manasse, 
eam possidere non potuit, quia habitatores in illa pristini perman- 
serunt (Jos. 17:11, 12). (O.S8. 142:13): Nefeddor, quod Symma- 
chus interpretatur maritimam (Jos. 11:2). Dor autem est oppidum 
iam desertum in nono miliario Caesareae pergentibus Ptolomaidem. 

In his Sanctae Paulae peregrinatio’, Jerome repeats his testimony 
concerning Dor, as follows: .... et per campos Mageddo, Josiae 
necis conscios intravit terram Philisthiim. Mirata rwinas Dor, 
u rb quondam potentissimae. Paula was a Roman matron who 
left Rome in 382 and lived in Bethlehem from 384 until her death 
in 404. On the basis of the statements of Eusebius and Jerome 








1 Onomastica Sacra, ed. Lagarde (2) 1887, 280: 40. 

2 See on the Bishops of Dor, pp. 102 ff. 

3 Hieronymi de situ et nominibus locorum hebraicorum liber. 

4 Hauck-Herzog, Encyk., s.v. Hieronymus. 

5 The fact that Dor was the seat of a bishopric at a later period indicates 
that it was restored. It would appear from the conflicting accounts of Dor 
in the early Christian centuries that the town passed through alternate 
periods of prosperity and decline. 

ὁ —epist. 108 ad. EHustochium c.VIII in opp. ed. Vallarsii et Maffaeii I, 
696. Also in Tobler et Molinier, Jtinera Hierosolymitana et Descriptiones 
Terrae Sanctae, I, p. 31. 


100 George Dahl, 


we are probably justified in inferring that some calamity depopu- 
lated Dor sometime after the middle of the fourth century. Later, 
however, the city must have been reéstablished, for we read of 
bishops of Dor in the following centuries. 


TABULA PEUTINGERIANA. 

Dor appears on the Tabula Peutingeriana’ under the form 
Thora’. The distance from Thora to Cesaria is indicated as VIII — 
miles, from Thora to Ptolomaide as XX miles. The former of 


—_« 


these distances is approximately correct, the latter not large 
enough by several miles’. 


δος «ὦ ~ 


This interesting map of military roads of the western Roman 
Empire is named after the Augsburg recorder, Konrad Peutinger, 
who obtained it in 1508 from its discoverer. This particular copy 
was made in the 13th century; the original in its present form 
goes back probably to the fourth century A.D.". 


STEPHAN OF BYZANTIUM. 


Stephan of Byzantium’, the author of a geographical dictionary 
called ‘* Ethnica,” is supposed to have lived in the fifth century’. — 
Included in the abridgement of this work now extant is a chapter 
on Adpos, πόλις Φοινίκης (‘* Dor, a city of Phoenicia”). The chapter 
mainly consists (in addition to a discussion of the ethnic of the 
town’s name) of quotations from Greek writers. These quotations 
have been fully treated above’, so that there is no need for their 
further discussion here. 

While Stephan has preserved in his quotations from the authors 
he cites valuable bits of information regarding Dor, he leaves us 
in the dark concerning the Dor of his own day. Like most ancient 
writers he is not consistently critical in his methods, and his testi- 





1 Ed. Desjardins (1868), segment IX. 

2 See above, p. 17. 

8 Guérin, Sam. 2:314. 

4 Teuffel-Schwabe, Hist. of Rom. Lit. (Eng. Trans. 1891-2), II, § 412:6; 
Ene. Brit. s.v. Konrad Peutinger. 

> Ed. Meineke, 1849, pp. 254 ff. 

6 Lippincott’s Pron. & Biog. Dict. on the name. 

τ Hecataeus, see p. 62; Josephus, pp. 66ff.; Claudius Iolaus, pp. 94f.; 
Artemidorus, p. 63; Apollodorus, p. 63; Alexander Ephesius, p. 64; Charax, 
p- 97; Pausanias, pp. 97f.; Craterus, pp. 62f. 


History of Dor. 101 


mony must, therefore, be carefully questioned at most points. His 
quotations are not always strictly accurate’. 


HIEROCLES. 

Hierocles, a grammarian, who is supposed to have lived in the 
sixth century A. D.*, wrote in Greek a ‘‘ Handbook for Travellers ” 
(Συνέκδημος), which lists the towns and provinces under the Eastern 
emperor at Constantinople. Dor is included among the cities in the 
first of the three divisions of the province of Palestine, as follows’: 


*Erapyia ΠΠαλαιστίνης, ὑπὸ κονσουλὰριον, πόλεις κβ΄: 
Καισάρεια μητρόπολις 

Δῶρα 

᾿Αντιπατρίς 

Διόσπολις 

Αξζωτος παράλιος 

ἴἼΛζωτος μεσόγειος, κτλ. 

‘The province of Palestine, under a proconsul, 22 cities: 
Caesarea, metropolis 

Dor 

Antipatris 

Diospolis 

Azotus on the coast 


Azotus inland, etc., etc.” 


In the fifth century the three-fold partition of Palestine (which 
is here used by Hierocles) into Palestina Prima (or Maritima), Pal- 
estina Secunda, and Palestina Tertia (or Salutaris) began to pre- 
vail*. These divisions were at once political and ecclesiastical, and 
continued during the time of the Crusades. The first division 
included the coast region as far as Carmel, with Caesarea as its 
metropolis or archbishop’s see. Dor is, as here, prevailingly named 
immediately after adjacent Caesarea. These early lists of towns 
are repeatedly copied by later writers, sometimes with modifica- 
tions, but apparently without investigation into the question of the 
contemporary state of the cities’. 





1 See on Josephus (pp. 86f.), and on Pausanias (p. 97 f.). 

5 Lippincott on the name; Burckhardt, Hieroclis Synecdemus, p. XIV 
(before 585 A. D.). 

5. Mierocles Grammaticus, ed. Parthey, p. 48; ed. Burckhardt, p. 41. 

4Socin in Enc. Bib., 3548 f., s.v. Palestine. 

5 See on Georgius Cyprius below. 


THE BISHOPS OF DOR. 


FIDUS. 

Lequien’ has collected records of five early bishops of Dor. The 
first of these is Fidus, who belongs in the last quarter of the fifth 
century. Apparently Dor had been rebuilt since the time of 
Jerome, when it was inruins’. The references to Fidus, Lequien 
quotes from the ‘‘ Vita sancti Euthymii abbatis, apud Cotelerium 
to. 2 monum. eccl. Graec.” This biography of St. Euthymius 
was written by the monk Cyrillus of Scythopolis*. Lequien’s quota- 
tions of the passages from the life of Euthymius relative to Fidus, 
and his comments on these quotations follow. 

Nam n. 60. p. 249. narrat ‘Fidum’ Fidi Joppensis episcopi 
nepotem, Anastasium, qui postea Hierosolymitanus evasit Patri- 
archa iuxta Euthymii prophetiam, comitatum esse ad eundem 
Euthymium invisendum euntem: ‘‘ Quum ergo desiderium videndi 
hominis (Euthymii) in se aleret, Fido Joppes episcopo, & Cosinae 
Crucum custodi pulchram illam communicat cupiditatem; atque eos 
assumens, quin etiam Fidum alterum episcopi Fidi nepotem, (erat 
autem is adhuc aetate iuvenis, & in chorum lectorum cooptatus; 
qui etiam Cyriaco monacho haec tradidit & narravit:) cum iis 


proficiscitur ad magnum Euthymium, ete.” 


Id contigit ante 
Juvenalis Patriarchae Hierosolymitani obitum, cui successit Anas- 
tasius modo memoratus anno 458. qui ‘‘Statim (ut refertur ibid. 
num. 96, pag 20) Fidum, qui ad lauram cum ipso accesserat, 
audieratque praedictiones (Euthymii,) ordinat diaconum, & rursus 
ad magnum (Euthymium) mittit una cum custode crucis; tum pro- 
phetiae significans eventum, tum rogans sibi permitti ad eum 
pergere, etc.” Num. 110. adfuit praesens Euthymii funeribus an. 
473, die 20. Januar, defuncti. ‘‘ Fama celeriter (mortis Euthymii) 
> inquit Cyrillus ibid. pag. 
294, ‘*monachorum & laicorum multitudo vix numerabilis congre- 


per omnem finitimam regionem sparsa,’ 


gata est; quin etiam Anastasius Hierosolymorum Patriarcha, 
assumto secum clericorum simul & militum examine, accessit. 





τ Oriens Christianus (Paris 1740) III, pp. 574-9. 
= See above, p. 99. 
3 Oriens Christ. III, p. 575. 





History of Dor. 103 


Aderat quoque Chrysippus, unaque Gabrielius, sed & diaconus 
Fidus . . . . cunctos autem in stuporem adducebat continuatio 
miraculorum.” Et pag. seq. 295. ‘‘Fidum autem diaconum 
(Patriarcha) in laura relinquens, ei aedificandi (sepulcri Euthymii) 
committit negotium. . . . . quo beatae illae Kuthymii reliquiae in 
apto & convenienti loco deponerentur.” Et num. 112. p. 296. 
*‘At diaconus Fidus, multa operarum manus collecta magnoque 
adhibito studio, speluncam quae in principio tenuit quiete agentem 
Euthymium, aedem pulcherrimam & maximam efficit, etc.” Mortuo 
Anastasio anno Christo 478. Martyrius eius successor, ad ‘‘ Imper- 
atorem Zenonem & Acacium Constantinopolitanum episcopum 
seribit de Aposchistis,” ibid num. 113 pag. 298... . ‘‘atque 
Fido diacono litteris traditis, non pauca viro ore etiam dicenda 
mandat.” Verum quum navigium ascendisset Fidus, certo nau- 
fragio ereptus fuit ab Euthymio quem invocaverat, quiqui illi 
apparens, dixit, ἢ. 114 p.299. ‘‘Nolitimere: Ego sum Kuthymius 
servus Dei: scias autem tibi bonum non esse hoc iter conspectu 
Dei; nullam enim afferet utilitatem matri ecclesiarum. Quapropter 
oportet te reverti ad eum qui te misit, eique meo nomine denun- 
ciare, ne sit ullatenus sollicitus de disiunctione Aposchistarum : 
non enim diu abhine, sed sub eius Pontificatu erit unio, & omnes 
Hierosolymitani fient unus grex atque sub uno Pastore.” (Verita- 
. tem visionis firmavit vaticinii eventus, de quo vide supra col 176.) 
““Te autem oportet venire ad meam lauram; & fratrum quidem 
cellas (dispersas nempe) diruere ab ipsis fundamentis, coenobium 
vero readificare illic, ubi meum aedificasti caemeterium. Locum 
enim Deo placet non lauram esse, sed potius caenobium ete.” Et 
num. 116. pag. 301. ‘‘ Transiens postea ad Patriarcham, ei omnia 
renunciavit Fidus. Et ille vehementer admiratus narrationem 
Opinione maiorem; profecto, inquit, Dei propheta est magnus 
Euthymius ... . quae enim ad lauram spectant, ea coram nobis 
omnibus praedixit, iam in Christo per mortem consummandus. His 
dictis, ipse etiam Fido committit coenobii aedificationem, con- 
ceditque ei ut illo proficiscatur, simul professos se quoque omnibus 
viribus apus una esse aggressurum.” Et num. 117. ‘‘Fidus 
itaque, accepta magna manu ministrorum & structorum, cum uno 
ex mechanicis seu architectis, descendit in lauram: quumque 
aedificasset coenobium, septoque & muro in orbem esset complexus, 
vetus quidem templum attribuit fratribus ad caenaculum, aliud 
autem templum aedificat superius. Intra coenobium vero splendide 


ΠΩ π ἢ, George Dahl, 


excitat turrim velut quoddam totius eremi propugnaculum, & in 
medio caemeterio collocat etc.” Et n. 119. ‘‘Quum itaque 
huiusmodi totum caenobil aedificium simul & ornamentum non 
opus habuisset plus quam tribus annis ob multas manus intensum- 
que ministerium, volebant quidem divini illi Patres, cum alio 
ornatu & artificio dedicationem etiam ecclesiae tribuere; eos autem 
arcebat rursus aquae penuria: nam in illa solitudine pluit tantum 
hyeme.... Itaque Helias praepositus, & diaconus Fidus sig- 
nificant Longino inferioris monasterii praefecto, & paulo praeposito 
monasterii Martyrii, ut per iumenta eos adiuvent ad aquam ex 
Pharis ἀπὸ Φαρῶν transferendam.” Num. 120. pag. 504. ‘* Sequenti 
ergo nocte, paratis lis circa diluculum ad iter, iamque congregatis 
iumentis, apparet nocte illa beato Heliae magnus Euthymius: Quid 
hoe sibi vult, rogans, quod hodie iumenta congregetis? Quum is 
vero respondisset; ut aquam ex Pharis afferamus, eo quod nos 
nune omnino defecerit; increpavit 1116, dicens: Modicae fidei 
homines, quanam de causa Deum non precati estis? Num is qui 
e praerupta petra inobedientem potavit populum, & aquam ex asini 
maxilla Samsoni aliquando fecit scaturire, non poterit vobis quoque 
ad usum suppeditare, dummodo cum fide offeratis petitionem ἢ 
Deinde eis etiam prohibuit iter ad Pharas ἐπὶ Φαρὰς ut minime 
necessarium, Aqua enim vobis implebuntur, inquit, vel maximae 
cisternae, ne tribus quidem horis expectatis.” Etn. 121. ‘‘Exci- 
tatus ὃ somno ad visionem beatus Helias, statimque ea Fido ὦ 
reliquis annunciata, iumenta ἃ proposito solvit ministerio: quum 
non autem iam transisset, & sol omnem quantam videt terram 
radiorum illustraret iaculis; nubes alicunde aérem subito complexa 
caenobio incumbentem, erupit protinus in pluviam, & omnia qui- 
dem circumeirea simile adhue puniebat flagellum siccitatis; 11 
autem soli qui erant in caenobio, aqua praeter opinionem frueban- 
tur: perinde ac si aliquis pluviam circumscripsisset, rursusque non 
sineret ulterius progredi. Postquam autem cisternae fuerunt aqua 
plenae, nec ii amplius indigebant imbribus ὃ caelo, statim nubes 
dissipata est, & vehemens imbrium procella ad serenitatem iterum 
redacta fuit.” Et num. 122. pag. 305. ‘‘Quum vero miraculum 
brevi totam pervasisset solitudinem, atque ad ipsum etiam arch- 
iepiscopum Martyrium iam pervenisset, descendens ille cum multa 
rerum affluentia ad coenobium, praeclaram agit synaxim & vigiliam 
cum multis lampadibus & suffitibus καὶ θυμιάμασι:; sed & splendidam 
magnificamque facit dedicationem: Deponem sub altari quasdam 
partes reliquiarum martyrum Tarochi, Probi & Andronici, septimo 


‘ 


History of Dor. 105 


mensis Mali, anno iam duodecimo post Euthymii mortem (proinde- 
que Christi 484). Quum aliquod autem tempus transiisset, dia- 
conus quoque Fidus accipit episcopatum civitatis quae vocatur 
Dora:” Proindeque ordinatus est Fidus iste, vel sub finem anni 
484 vel anno seq. 485. Quid in praesulatu egerit, & quonam 
obierit anno nos latet. Constat solum exeunte anno 518, eum non 
fuisse amplius superstitem. 


BAROCHIUS. 


The second Bishop of Dor of whom we have any record is 
Barochius’, who was present at the council of Jerusalem in 518’. 
This council convened under Patriarch John of Jerusalem in order 
to ratify the decisions of the Council of Constantinople held earlier 
in the same year under Patriarch John of Constantinople’. The 
two councils were in decided agreement. Among the thirty-three 
bishops assembled at Jerusalem was Barochius. His name appears 
with the other signatures attached to the decree of assent issued 
by the Jerusalem Patriarch*®: Βαρώχιος ἐπίσκοπος Δώρων ἐῤῥῶσθαι pe, 
καὶ τὰ λοιτά. Barochius’, episcopus Dororum, valere me, & reliqua. 
From the first signature to this document (viz., that of the Patri- 
arch John of Jerusalem) we learn that καὶ τὰ λοιπά represents: καὶ 
τῷ κυρίῳ εὐαρεστεῖν εὔχεσθε δεσπόται ἅγιοι, Kal θεοφιλέστατοι, Kal ὁσιώτατοι 
πατέρες. Latin: & domino beneplacere orate, domini sancti, ac 
Deo amantissimi & sanctissimi patres. 

In the year 518, therefore, Barochius was at the head of the 
bishopric of Dor. Further information concerning him we have 
none’. 


JOHN. 


A third Bishop of Dor was among those who, in September, 536, 
were present at a council held in Jerusalem under the Patriarch 





1 Variant form in the Latin, ‘‘ Marochius” (Harduin, Acta Conciliorum 
II, p. 1846; Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima Collectio, 
VIII, p. 1073). Guérin (Sam. 2:318) writes ‘‘ Baronius.” He also calls him 
the first Bishop of Dor. ? 

2 Lequien III, pp. 578 f. 

3 Hefele, Conciliengeschichte II, pp. 688 ff. 

4 Mansi VIII, pp. 1073 f., Harduin, II, pp. 13845f. This decree is recorded 
in Harduin among the acts of a later Constantinople Council, held in 536 
under Mennas (Hefele ἰ.6.; Noris, Annus et Epochae, p. 457). 

5 See note 1, above. 

ὃ Lequien, l.c. 


106 George Dahl, 


Peter. Ἰωάννης ἐπίσκοπος Δοάρων (““ John, Bishop of Dor”) appears 
among the signers of the decree (directed against Anthimus and 
other opponents of the Council of Chalcedon), which was promul- 
gated by the Jerusalem council’. The fact that at the Constanti- 
nople Council held in the same year (May and June 536), John, 
Bishop of Zoar, was present’, might seem to indicate that Zodpov 
should be read for Aodpwv. But the reading with A is the one here 
attested*; and it is hardly probable that Dor was without repre- 
sentation at the Jerusalem Council’. In itself there is nothing 
improbable in the conclusion that the bishops of Dor and Zoar in 
the year 556 were both named John. 


STEPHAN, 


On the eighth of October, 649, Stephan, Bishop of Dor, was 
introduced to the Constantinople Council of that year, over which 
Pope Martin presided’, From the communication read to this 
Council by Stephan we learn that this was his third appearance 
before the Pope at Rome. He had been sent the first time by 
Sophronius I, Patriarch of Jerusalem (who succeeded Modestus, 
c. 634") to accuse Sergius of Joppa and other Bishops of monothe- 
litism. Pope Theodore (as we learn from Stephan’s letter just 
mentioned) appointed Stephan his representative in Palestine to 
convert to orthodoxy or else to depose the heretic bishops appointed 
by Sergius’. Some of these bishops recanted and were duly con- 
firmed in their offices by Pope Martin. 

Stephan is introduced® by a ‘‘Theophylactus notarius” to the 
Constantinople Council of 649 (Secretarius II) as 6 ὁσιώτατος ἐπίσκο- 
ros Δώρων πρῶτος ὑπάρχων τῆς ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις ἱερατικῆς δικαιοδοσίας. 
‘*The most reverend Bishop of Dor, who is first of the church 
council in Jerusalem.” In the introduction and conclusion of the 





1 Lequien, IfI, p. 579; Harduin, 11, p. 1418. 

2 Lequien, /. c.; Harduin, 11, p. 1402. 

3. Although the Latin in Harduin reads ‘‘ Posdonus.” 

4 Cp. the Jerusalem Council in 518 just discussed, at which Barochius of 
Dor was present. 

5 Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, III, pp. 216f.; Noris, Annus et Epochae, pp. 
457 ff.; Lequien, III, pp. 579 f. 

6 Lequien, J, ¢. 

’ Hefele, III, pp. 209 ἡ. 

8 Mansi X, pp. 891 f.; Harduin, III, pp. 709 ff. 


History of Dor. 107 


letter he reads’, Stephan refers to himself in almost exactly the 
same words. Among the signatures under Secretarius I of this 
same council’ appears in Latin the name: Stephano Dorensi episc. 
In the Greek of both Mansi and Harduin, however, the name does 
not appear. 

The address of Stephan to the Council® proves him to be a man 
zealous for the orthodox faith, in defence of which he has incurred 
the bitter hate of his opponents. He points out that Christ must 
possess both a divine and a human will if he is at once true God 
and true man. Any other teaching is opposed to that of the Council 
of Chalcedon. No innovations must be permitted to stain the faith. 
Stephan and those in the East renew the request of Sophronius that 
the Council reject and destroy these false teachings which are again 
being spread abroad by Theodore of Pharan, Cyrus, and by Sergius 
of Joppa and his followers. 

In a letter to John, Bishop of Philadelphia‘, Pope Martin says 
that John had been strongly recommended to him by Stephan of 
Dor and the eastern monks. He therefore appoints John as his 
vicar in the East, with the task of restoring order and appointing 
in the patriarchates of Antioch and Jerusalem bishops, priests and 
deacons. Bishop Stephan, to whom this commission had originally 
been given, had been hindered by others’ from executing it. 

Pope Martin wrote to a certain Pantaleon’ in reply to his criti- 
cism of Stephan of Dor. The Pope laments the circumstance that, 
while Stephan had been given full authority to depose certain 
bishops and priests, the documents authorizing him to appoint 
others to fill their places had been kept from him. In this way the 
clergy in those districts had become insufficient for the needs. The 
Pope has now appointed a new vicar and instructed him whom he 
may or may not appoint. This new vicar is evidently John, Bishop 
of Philadelphia, to whom reference has just been made. How 





1 Mansi X, pp. 891 E., 901 B; Harduin, III, pp. 709 ff., 720. 

2 Mansi X, p. 867. 

3 Hefele, III, pp. 216f. 

4 Mansi X, pp. 806 ff. ; Harduin, III, p. 689; Hefele, III, p. 230. 

5. Cp. Letter to Pantaleon following. 

ὁ Mansi X, p. 821 A; MHarduin, III, p. 652; Noris, Annus ete. p. 455; 
Hefele, III, p. 231.—Nothing further is known about Pantaleon. The letter 
was probably written shortly after 649 (cp. Mansi). 


108 George Dahl, 


many years after 649 Stephanus continued his work we do not 
know’. 
ZACHARIUS. 


From the works of St. John of Damascus (died between 963-969 
A.D.) Lequien quotes’ the title of a letter from Peter Mansur to 
Zacharius, bishop of Dor (written Aodpwv)*. Inasmuch as we know 
nothing further about either the sender or the receiver of this letter, 
it is not possible to determine its date. It would seem, however, 
that we have had preserved for us here a copy of a letter sent to 
one of the bishops of Dor, perhaps from the sixth or seventh cen- 
tury. Lequien’s statement is as follows: 

Extat inter opera 8. Joannis Damasceni novae editionis Paris. 
1712. to I, p. 655 A. ‘epistola sanctissimi Petri Mansur ad Zacha- 
riam episcopum Doarum Δοάρων, de corpore & sanguine Christi.’ 
Pro Δοάρων autem legendum arbitror Δώρων Dororum. Auctor 
enim huius epistolae, qui non fuit ipse sanctus Joannes Damascenus, 
cuius nee doctrinam refert, videtur commoratus in Palestina, 
quippe qui pag. 655 A. quaedam verba recitat ex liturgia sancti 
Jacobi seu Hierosolymitana. Quum vero non constet quandonam 
vixerit Petrus ille, pariter etiam huius Zachariae aevum definiri 
accurate non potest. Eius porro hic meminimus, ex hopothesi quod 
reipsa fuerit, aliquo tempore, Dororum in Palestina episcopus, 
Zacharias nuncupatus. 








1 Lequien, IIT, p. 580. 

2 Oriens Christianus, III, p. 580; Opera Joannis Damascenit Monachi et 
Presbyteri Hierosolymitani (Venetiis, 1748). 

5. Cp. Bishop John, p. 105. 


LATER GEOGRAPHERS. 


ISIDOR OF SEVILLE. 

In his work Originum sive Etymologiarum Libri XX, Isidor of 
Seville’ refers to Dor in the following terms (Bk. XV, ch. 1): Dor 
urbs fuit quondam potentissima, et versa vice Stratonis turris, 
postea ab Herode, rege Iudaeae, in honorem Caesaris Augusti Cae- 
sarea nuncupata. In qua Cornelii domum Christi vidit* ecclesia’, 
et Philippi aediculas, et cubiculum quatuor virginum prophetarum. 

Isidorus Hispalensis lived from 565 to "636 A. D., becoming 
bishop of Seville in 600. The work from which the passage above 
is quoted is a compilation of various sources. Among these 
sources’ are included Orosius, Jerome’s Onomasticon, Solinus, Ser- 
vius on Vergil, Josephus’ Antiquities and Suetonius. His work 
has not, therefore, the value of an original source. 

How little his knowledge of geography really was is indicated by 
Isidor’s evident confusion (in the passage quoted) of Dor and Cae- 
sarea. In some way his sources seem to have given him the idea 
that Dor was but another name for Strato’s Tower; possibly on a 
map the names were written confusedly®. The mention of bishops 
of Dor contemporary with Isidor* clearly proves that the city was 
in existence in his day. 


GEOGRAPHUS RAVENNAS. 


From the seventh century there has come down to us the work 
of an anonymous writer on geography, who is referred to as Geog- 
raphus Ravennas. His main source appears to be the Tabula Peu- 
tingeriana; in addition he used several Greek writers as sources’. 





1 Ed. F. V. Otto, p. 462. (=Tom III Corpus Gram. Lat. Vet.) 

2 Var., ‘‘ videt’’, ‘‘est”’. 

8 Var. ‘‘ecclesiam ”. 

4K. Miller, Mappae Mundi, VI, p. 59. 

°K. Miller (Mappae Mundi, VI, Map 2) has tentatively reconstructed a 
map on the basis of the work of Isidor. On this map ‘‘ dor Cesarea” 
appears between Tyrus and Joppe.—There are several T-shaped sketch 
maps preserved in MSS. of this writer. 

6 See chapter on “" Bishops of Dor”. 

™Miller, Mappae Mundi, VI, p. 34. 





110 George Dahl, 


Asa result of this process of compilation repetitions occur. For 
example, in Book 11, chap. 15, Phoenice is included in Syria; while 
in chap. 16 of the same Book II, Fenitia appears as a province of 
Asia Minor’, 

In Book IT, chap. 15 of this work’, Dora is included among the 
maritime cities (Phoenician) as follows: Item ad aliam partem 
iuxta mare sunt civitates, id est Biblon, Birithon, Sidone, Tyrone, 
Edippa, Ptolemaida, Dora. 

Again in Book V, chap. 7°, Dora is mentioned with ‘‘totas civi- 
tates circa litora totius maris magni positas*,” as follows: Iterum 
civitas.... Iloppe, Apollonia, Caesarea Palaestinae, Dora, Ptolo- 
maida, Eedilpa, Tyros’. 

This reference to Dor by Ravennas adds nothing to our informa- 
tion about the city. 

GUIDO. 


In the year 1119 a certain Guido, concerning whose identity 
nothing definite is known, wrote a sort of universal history in six 
books. As a basis for his work he used the writings of the anony- 
mous Geographus Ravennas, in such manner that his ‘‘ Geogra- 


> is little more than a recension of the earlier work’. From 


phica’ 
this compilation by Guido, we quote the following’: Si subtilius 
scire voluerit totas circumquaque parte per litora maris_ positas 
etc. . . . . Ioppe, Apollonia, Cesarea Phalestinae, Dora, Ptolo- 
maida, Ecdilpa, Tyrus Sidonia. ... . 

No contribution to our knowledge of Dor is made by this late 


compilation of earlier materials. 


THE PATRIARCHATE OF JERUSALEM. 


There has been preserved part of a French Provincial (= list of 
bishopries, etc.) dating from ὁ. 1180 A.D., which names Dor first 





' Miller, 1. c. 

2 Ravennatis anonymi Cosmographia et Gwidonis Geographica, ed. 
Pinder et Parthey, p. 89. 

3 Op. cit., p. 357. 

4 Op. cit., p. 825. Here in the opposite order. 

° See Miller, Mappae Mundi, VI, p. 30 for partial reconstructed map of 
Ravennas exhibiting Dora. 

6 Miller, Mappae Mundi, 111. p. 54; VI, p. 7. 

τ Ravennatis anon. Cosmographia et Guidonis Geographica, ed. Pinder 
et Parthey, pp. 504, 524. 


History of Dor. 111 


among the sees under Caesarea. It reads in part as follows’: 
(Patriarcat De Jérusalem). 

En Palestine, li premiers sieges: Cesaire Maritime que Herodes 
redesia, soz laquele sunt XIX sieges d’eveschié: Dore, Antipa- 
trida, Jamnias, Assur, Nicople, Omis, Sorti Kayfas, Ierico, 
Apotas, Paumeroie, Cipon, Escomason, Essulion, Touxe, Le Sault, 
Constantine. 

This list is extremely corrupt’, and goes back to early Greek and 
Latin lists as its sources’. It cannot therefore be used as an argu- 
ment for the continued existence of Dor down to the end of the 
twelfth century. 


GEORGIUS CYPRIUS. 


George of Cyprus’ became patriarch of Constantinople in 1283 
and abdicated in 1289. He wrote, evidently on the basis of older 
documents, a ‘‘ Descriptio orbis romani.” In this work he repro- 
duces’ the early churchly division of Palestine in A., B. and C., 
naming Dor’ as first of the sees under the metropolis Caesarea: 


"Exapxia Παλαιστίνης Α. 
Αἰλία Ἱεροσολύμων ᾿Αγία Πόλις. 
Καισάρεια μητρόπολις. 

Δῶρα. 
᾿Αντιπατρίς. 
Διόσπολις ἤτοι Τεωργιούπολις. 
"Tapia. 
Νικόπολις. 
*Ovous. 
Σῳζουσα. 
Ἰόππη. 
᾿Ασκαλών. 
Τάζα. 
Ῥαφία. 
᾿Ανθηδών. 


Διοκλητιανούπολις. 





1 Michelant et Reynaud, Itinéraires ἃ Jerusalem etc., p. 12. 
* Cp. list of Georgius Cyprius following. 

3 Op. cit., p. XII. 

4 Lippincott’s Pron. & Biog. Dict., s.v. 

5 Georgius Cyprius, ed. Gelzer, No. 1000. 

5 Cp. the *‘ Patriarchate of Jerusalem ” preceding. 


112 George Dahl, 


᾿ῬἘἜλευθερόπολις. 

Νεαπόλις. 

Σεβαστή. 

‘Peyewv ᾿Απάθους. 

Ῥεγεὼν Ἱεριχώ. 

Ρεγεὼν Λιβίας. 

ῬΡεγεὼν Γάδαρα. 

Αζωτος Πάραλος. 

Αζωτος ἡ ἽΠππινος. 

᾿θυκωμάζων. 

Βιττύλιος. 

Τρικωμίας. 

Τόξος. 

Ξάλτων Κωνσταντιανικῆς. 

Σάλτων Τεραϊτικὸς. 

ἦτοι βαρσάμων. 

‘¢Kparchy Palestine A. 

Aelia’ Jerusalem, the Holy City. 

Caesarea Metropolis. 

Dor, 

Antipatris, etc., etc.” 

Dor’s place in these lists seems to be regularly after that of 
Caesarea. It would seem that the version of Georgius Cyprius 
has suffered less corruption of text than that of the Patriarchate of 
Jerusalem above. 





1So named after Publius Aelius Hadrianus (Sophocles, Greek Lexicon 
S.V.). 





THE PERIOD OF THE CRUSADES. 


In connection with the First Crusade (1095-1099) mention of 
Dor is made by several historians. Houcher de Chartres', who 
himself took part in the events he is narrating, traces the route 
taken in 1099 by the French along the coast on their journey to 
Jerusalem. After a futile attempt to capture Archas, a city near 
the Lebanons, the army was proceeding down the coast. Regard- 
ing the march from Acre to Caesarea Foucher writes as follows: 

Accon vero, id est Ptholomaida, ab Austro habet Carmeli mon- 
tem. Iuxta quam transeuntes ad dexteram reliquerunt oppidum 
Caypham’ dictum, post haec iuxta Doram’, exin, iuxta Caesaream 
Palaestinae incessimus, quae quidem antiquitus dicta est altero 
nomine Turris Stratonis, in qua Herodes . . . . exspiravit infeli- 
citer. 

The anonymous author of the Gesta Francorum Iherusalem 
Expugnantium, writing before 1109 (who himself declares that his 
work is an abridgment of that by Foucher de Chartres), records 
this same march down the coast’: 

Transeuntes autem Achilon’, invenerunt oppidum Caypha dic- 
tum, quod est sub Carmelo monte, et habet mare ob Oriente, mon- 
tem vero ab Occidente. Dehine Caesaream Palaestinae adorsi 
sunt, quae quidem Dor’ antiquitus, a quibusdam vero Turris Stra- 
tonis nuncupata est, in qua Herodes . . . . infeliciter exspiravit. 

This account adds nothing to the information given by Foucher 
de Chartres. It is suggestive, however, in that the carelessness 
with which the author handles his source warns us against expect- 
ing any great amount of accuracy in Crusading historians. 





1 Recueil des Historiens des Croisades, Historiens Occidentaux II, pp. 
XXVIII, 354; Gesta Dei per Francos, ed. Bongars, I, p. 396. 

2 T.e., Haifa. 

’ One MSS. (F in the Bibliotheque de l’Arsenal, Paris) and ed. Bongars 
add: ‘‘vel Pirgul.” This is doubtless a corruption of πύργος (see Guerin, 
Sam. Il, p. 314), and refers probably to Caesarea, whose ancient name was 
πίργος Στράτωνος (= Turris Stratonis). 

4 Recueil, Hist. Occident., 111, pp. XXXVI, 508. 

5 T.e., Acre (or Accho or Accon). 

‘This is, of course, an error on the part of the writer. Possibly he is 
following Isidor of Spain, who makes the same mistake (see above, p. 109). 


TRANS. CONN. ACAD., Vol. XX. 8 1915. 


114 George Dahl, 


In still another record of this march mention is made of Dor. 
This is the anonymous history of the First Crusade (with a contin- 
uation to 1123) written in 1146-47 by order of Baldwin TIT of 
Jerusalem, and known as Balduini ITI Historia Nicaena vel Antio- 
chena', Beginning with the abandonment of the siege of Archas, 
this account reads: 

Mox obsidionem solventes, praetergressi sunt urbem Tripolim 
deinde urbem Beritum, post haee Sydonem, quae ab incolis Sagitta 
dicitur, exinde Sareptam Sydoniae, dehine Tyrum, quam Sur 
nominant (Ilebraice enim Soor dicitur), inde Ptolemaidam, prius 
Accon dictam, deinde oppidum Chaypha, exhine Doram, post haec 
Caesaream Palaestinae, quae altero nomine Turris Stratonis dicitur. 


Like the accounts already given, this gives us no definite infor- 
mation about the town of Dor. 

Covering in part this same period is the work, Benedicti De 
Accoltis Historia Gotefridi’, written between the years 1464 and 
1466. In the midst of his description of the advance toward Jeru- 
salem, this late historian digresses in order to explain the location 
of the principal cities of Judea: 

Duo in ea nobiles portus Lannetorum et Gazeon imprimis 
fuerunt, et infrascriptae urbes maritimae, quae praecipuae habe- 
bantur: Stratonis (Pyrgus), Caesarea, Appollonia, Azotus, Joppe, 
Aschalon, Gaza, Dora et Antedon. 


After mentioning other Judean and the Samaritan and Galilean 
cities, he continues: 

Sed ex his non paucae urbibus desertae aut disiectae fuerant, 
quum Christiani Judaeam armis repetiverunt, plurimae quoque 
yetus nomen prorsus amiserant. 


Casual reference to Dor is made by William of Tyre (Book X, 
Cap. XXVI)* in connection with the wounding of King Baldwin I 
in the year 1103 on his return along the coast after the abandon- 
ment of the siege of Ptolemais: 





1 Recueil, Hist. Occident., V, pp. XX XI, 174 E. 

2 Ibid,, pp. CXXXV, 599 C. Practically his only source was the work of 
William of Tyre. 

3 Ibid. I, Part I, p. 440. 





History of Dor. 115 


Volensque per Caesaream redire, accidit quod in loco, qui dicitur 
Petra Incisa’, iuxta antiquam Tyrum’, inter Capharnaum* et Doram, 
oppida maritima, qui locus hodie Districtum* appellatur, praedones 
et viarum publicarum effractores invenit. Etc. ete. 


This same writer again makes incidental reference to Dor in his 
account of the fruitless siege of Tyre in the year 1111, as follows’: 


Est autem Tyrus civitas in corde maris sita, in modum insulae 
circumsepta pelago, caput et metropolis provinciae Phoenicis, quae 
a rivo Valeniensi, usque ad Petram Incisam, Dorae conterminam’, 
protenditur ; infra sui ambitum, urbes suffraganeas continens 
quatuordecim. 


In none of these instances cited is mention made of any settle- 
ment or fortress at Dor. Nothing is said concerning the town that 
could not be gathered from ancient literary sources. Benedict’s 
statement’ above to the effect that some of the towns he mentions 
were deserted or destroyed was quite probably true of Dor at this 
time. Ifa town named Dor had existed at this period we should 
certainly have expected some reference to the name in the account 
of Richard’s march down the coast in 1191°. Apparently these 
historians of the Crusades knew of the existence and location of 
Dor, not from personal observation or through the accounts of 
those who had visited the place, but from ancient Biblical and 
geographical notices. We are, accordingly, uninformed regarding 
the real status of Dor at this time. 





1 According to Conder (P.E.F., Spec. Pap., p. 275), ‘‘The old name for 
Khirbet Dustrey, the outlying fort of ‘Athlit, is Petra Incisa (The Scarped 
Rock).” The name is probably derived from the passage through the rocky 
ridge near ‘Athlit.—See also the notes on geography in Recueil, Hist. Occi- 
dent., I, Part I, p. XXVI. 

2 Also known as St. John of Tyre: Michelant et Raynaud, Itinéraires 
Francais, pp. 229 (Pelrinages et Pardouns de Acre), 901 (Les Pelerinaiges 
por aler en Iherusalem). 

° See below, pp. 117f. 

4 Recueil, 1. c. 

® Recueil, Hist. Occident., I, Part I, p. 482. 

ὃ Probably nearer ‘Athlit than Dor. There are a number of these passages 
through the ridge between Dor and ‘Athlit. 

ΤΡ, 114, 

5 See below, pp. 116 ff. 


TRANS. CONN. ACAD., Vol. XX. 9 1915. 


116 George Dahl, 


At the end of the work by William of Tyre’ there appears (very 
likely added by another hand) a list of the cities subject to the 
principality of Jerusalem, As in the earlier lists’, Dor appears 
first among the cities under the archbishopric of Caesarea : 

I Sedes Prima, Caesarea Maritima. Sub hac sede sunt episco- 
patus XIX 

Dora 

Antipatrida 

Jamnias 

Nicopolis, etc., etc. 


This bare mention of the name ‘‘ Dora” does not indicate that the 
city flourished at the time. Here, too, old lists doubtless formed 
the basis of the enumeration. 


At the time of the Third Crusade (1189-1192), Richard marched 
along the coast with his army. After the capture of Acre 
(Summer 1191), he started toward Joppa. The route taken and 
the difficulties of the march are thus described by Geoffrey de 
Vinsauf*: 

“*) . . . On a Wednesday, which was the third day after stop- 
ping at Cayphas (= Haifa), the army moved forward in order, the 
Templars leading the van, and the Hospitallers closing the rear, 
both of whom by their high bearing gave evidence of great valour, 
That day the army moved forward with more than wonted caution, 
and stopped after a long march, impeded by the thickets and the 
tall and luxuriant herbage, which struck them in the face, especially 
the foot soldiers. ... . When the king had proceeded as far as 
Capernaum, which the Saracens had razed to the ground, he dis- 
mounted and took some food, the army, meanwhile, waiting; those 
who chose took food, and immediately after proceeded on their 
march to the house called ‘of the narrow ways,” because the road 
there becomes narrow; there they halted and pitched their tents. 

. . . The army remained two days at the abovementioned station, 
where there was plenty of room for their camp, and waited there 





1 Recueil, Hist. Occident., 1, Part II, p. 1136. 

* See pp. 101, 110f. 

3 Ttinerarium Ricardi (ed. T. Gale), IV, 12 ff.—English translation by H. 
G. Bohn, Itinerary of Richard 1, Bk. IV, §§ 12-14. 

4Or, ‘‘Casal of the Narrow Ways.” (‘‘Casam dictam angustarum 
viarum,” in ed. T. Gale). 


History of Dor. 117 


until the ships arrived which they were expecting ; namely, barges 
and galleys, laden with provisions, of which they were in need; for 
these vessels were sailing in connection with the army along the 
shore, and carried their provisions on board. The army advanced, 
using all precaution against the Turks, who kept on their flank, to : 
a town called Merla’, where the king had spent one of the previous 
nights; there he had determined that he would lead the van himself 
the next day, on account of the obstacles in the way and because 
the Templars kept guard in the rear; for the Turks continually 
threatened them in a body on the flank .... The army, after 
accomplishing its march with great difficulty, arrived that day at 


Caesarea’.”’ 


The Capernaum mentioned above is strangely supposed by 
Conder® to be ancient Dor. He cites as authority for this identi- 
fication Rabbi Benjamin of Tudela, who travelled southward along 
the coast to Caesarea between 1166 and 1171. The passage in 
Benjamin reads’: 

PPD NT) DWIT VDD NW) OINI 7559 PANDID YIN ov) 
DI NT ANI! MNDID AWY OWN 30ND 222) Dips 
-ONwI5? AWN 

“¢ From there (i.e., Haifa), it is four parasangs to Capernaum, 
which is the village of Nahum, identical with Maon, the place of 
Nabal the Carmelite’. And from there it is six parasangs to 
Caesarea, which is Gath of the Philistines.” 


Conder mistakenly understands the passage to indicate that the 
distance from Haifa (instead of from Capernaum!) to Caesarea 
is six parasangs. He therefore argues that the proportional dis- 
tances of four and six parasangs from Haifa to Capernaum and 
Caesarea respectively, point to the identification of Capernaum 
with ancient Dor. Capernaum is more probably to be placed at 





1 Ed. T. Gale: ‘‘ad oppidum Mirlam dictum.” According to Dr. Stubbs, 
this was on Aug. 30, 1191. 

3 The main body passed the night at the Crocodile River (Nahr el-Zerka) 
north of Caesarea. 

5 P.E.F., Special Papers, p. 275. 

4M. N. Adler, Itinerary of Benjamin of Tudela, pp. NS f, 

5 Maon is, of course, contiguous to another Carmel situated in Judah (1 
Sam. 25:2ff.). Benjamin simply cites the faulty identification current in 
this region. So also in the case of Gath. 


3 


118 George Dahl, 


Al-Kunaisah' (the Little Church), a mound a few miles north of 
‘Athlit’. This would fit the proportional distance given by Ben- 
jamin. William of Tyre* makes a clear distinction between the 
maritime cities of Capernaum and Dor. Conder’s identification of 
the two is in any case absurd’, 

The ‘‘ house of the narrow ways” is probably near ‘Athlit®. The 
name arose from the rock-cut passages through the coast ridge; of 
these there are several between ‘Athlit and Dor’. The harbor at 
‘Athlit would have made possible the landing of provisions. This 
identification is to be preferred to that of Conder, who wishes to 
identify the Casal (as well as Capernaum) with Dor. It is hardly 
probable that the heavily armored soldiers would have attempted 
to make the march of twenty miles to Dor in one day; more likely 
they encamped at ‘Athlit. 

Concerning the location of the next place mentioned, viz. Merla 


(or Mirla or Merle), there is considerable doubt. If our identifica- _ 


tions thus far have been correct, it must lie somewhere between 
‘Athlit and Caesarea, the town next in order, The narrative here 
does not make clear whether it was on the coast or inland on the 
main road. Elsewhere, a Merle is spoken of as a fortress belong- 
ing to the Templars”. Among the fortresses of Palestine captured 
by Saladin after his defeat of King Guy, July 6, 1187, are included 
Castellum Merle Templi and Castellum de Planis®. Bohaeddin in 
his account of this march along the coast’’ gives the name as El- 





1 Or, Tell Kanisah. See especially DeGoeje’s note in his edition of Mokad- 
dasi, Bibl. Geogr. Arab. 111, p. 192, note m. 

> Guy le Strange, Pal. under the Moslems, Ὁ. 477; Adler, op. cit., pp. 31, 
32; Recueil, Hist. Occident., I, Part I, p. LIV. 

3 Above, p. 115: ‘inter Capharnaum et Doram, oppida maritima.” 

4T, A. Archer, Crusade of Richard I, p. 376 (note F.). 

5 P:- 1116: 

6 Archer, l.c.; Itinerarium Regis Ricardi (Rolls Series) p. 255; Recueil, 
Hist. Occident., 1, Part I, pp. XX VI, LIV. 

7 Conder, P.E.F., Spec. Papers, p. 275: above p. 18. 

SW. Stubbs, Hist. Introd. to the Rolls Series (ed. Hassell), p. 329.—In 
the Pelrinages et Pardouns de Acre of the 13th or 14th cent. (Michelant et 
Reynaud, Jtinéruires ἃ Jérusalem, Ὁ. 229), it is stated of ‘‘ Chastiel Pelryn:” 
‘*e de pres est Merle.” 

9 Chronicle of the Reigns of Henry 11 and Richard I, by Benedict of 
Peterborough (Rolls Series), IT, p. 23. 

10 Recueil, Hist, Orient., 111, pp. 246, 248: Itinerarium Regis Ricardi (Rolls 
Series), p. 255; Wilken, Geschichte der Kreuzziige, IV, p. 407, 


History of Dor. 119 


Mellaha (s> II). Apparently the fortress at Merla had been 
destroyed by 1191, for there is no mention of a fortress there either 
in the Itinerarium or in Bohaeddin’s Life of Saladin just mentioned. 

Attempts have been made to identify Merla with Dor’, and such 
an identification is not impossible. However, in view of the fact 
that Dor lies off the coast road, it may be better with Conder’ to 
locate Merla at El-Mezra‘a* between Dor and Caesarea, where a 
strong Crusading tower still remains in ruins beside the main road. 
Withal, we must still admit the possibility that the ruins at Dor 
(if they be of the Crusading period at all) are those of Merla. It 
seems almost certain, however, that the fortress was not standing 
when Richard passed through this region. Otherwise some refer- 
ence to it would doubtless have been made. 


Having arrived at Joppa, Richard issued orders to the army to 
rebuild the fortresses of Plans and Maen*. The Templars, while 
engaged in this work at Plans, were attacked by Turkish cavalry 
from Bombrac. King Richard, who was busy rebuilding Maen, 
heard of the tumult, and on his arrival succeeded in driving away 
the Turks. 

Conder’, again relying upon Benjamin of Tudela’, identifies 
Maen with Capernaum, and therefore with Dor. Plans he places 
at Kalensawieh, situated about twenty miles from Dor and a like 
distance from Ibn Ibrak (=Bombrac). But the account of the 
proceedings in the Itinerary makes it clear that Maen and Plans 
are in the neighborhood of Joppa. Dor, which is nearly forty 
miles away, cannot possibly be meant. Dr. Stubbs’ suggests that 
Plans is the village of Beit Dejan, five and one-half miles S.E. of 
Joppa, and that Maen is to be sought at Saferiyeh, seven milesS.E. 
of Joppa. These two towns are only one and one-half miles apart; 
this would make it easily possible for the king to rush quickly to 
the rescue of the attacked Templars. These identifications are 





1 Recueil, Hist. Occident., 1, Part I, p. LIV; G. A. Smith, Hist. Geog., 
p. 130. 

° P.E.F., Spec. Pap., p. 275; Archer, l.c.; 8.W.P. Mem., ΤΙ, p. 4. 

3 The similarity in the names is to be noticed. 

4 Itin. of Richard I, Bk. IV, 88 29, 30 (Bohn’s translation). 

5 P.H.F., Spec. Pap., p. 277. 

5 See above, pp. 117f. 

1 Archer, Crusades of Richard I, p. 176. 


120 George Dahl, 


very probable ones; those of Capt. Conder are absolutely impos- 
sible. 


The results of our investigation of the history of Dor during 
the Crusading period are negative. The references to the town 
under the old name Dora, we have concluded, are merely reminis- 
cences of the earlier days of the city; in any case they supply no 
information. The identification of Capernaum and Maen with 
Dor have been shown to be impossible; that of the ‘‘house of the 
narrow ways,” improbable. There is a possibility (though not a 
probability) that Merla represents ancient Dor. In our present 
inadequate knowledge of the Crusading period, with its confusion 
and constant change of names, it seems impossible to decide what 
there was on the site of Dor at this time. At some period the fort 
whose ruins still lie scattered about must have been occupied. A 
more exhaustive study of Crusading documents or the use of the 
spade on the spot may throw lght upon the history of Dor during 
the Crusades. 





THE ARAB GEOGRAPHERS. 


The outstanding fact is that Dor (δ). 61.) is not mentioned at 
all by the classical Arab geographers (i. e. during the 9th to the 
12th centuries A. D.). Moreover, in their various enumerations of 
the cities and towns on the Syrian coast, or along the travelled 
roads in that region, they habitually ‘‘skip over” Dor in a way 
that shows that they know of no town there worth mentioning. 

Thus, Ibn Khordaidhbeh, in the first half of the 9th century, 
describes the maritime district of central Syria with mention of 
‘Akka, Kadas, Tyre; Jaffa, Caesarea, Nabulus’. Similarly Ya‘kibi, 
at the close of the 9th century, mentions Tyre and ‘Akka, 
and then proceeds inland with his description; then returning to 
the coast he names Caesarea, Jaffa, and Jamnia’. 

Much more significant still is the fact that in the great geograph- 
ical dictionary of Yakit (about 1200 A. D.), as well as in that of 
Bekri (latter part of the 11th century), Tantiira does not occur. 


IOs 


aes Oe oe . . . 
Yakit, in his article on Laas 123, a fortress in the Haifa region, 
has occasion to speak of the coast south of the latter city. Kasr 


Haifa, he says, is ‘‘a place between Haifa and Caesarea” (aay 


Klass Lana ute): Obviously Caesarea was the first town 
south of the Carmel promontory known to this geographer’s 
sources. Yakit, it may be added, mentions ‘Athlit (uti) as a 
fortress which had been taken by Saladin in 583 A. H. (1187 A.D.). 
The evidence gained from the Arab geographers, then, appears 
to be this, that between the 7th and 12th or 13th centuries the coast 
region between ‘Akk&a and Caesarea was only sparsely inhabited. 
The road along the shore was probably unsafe and little used. 
Haifa almost disappears from sight, from the 7th century down to 
1100 A.D., when the town was besieged and taken by Tancred. The 
remark of Ibn Shaddad quoted by De Goeje, from a Leyden manu- 
script, in his edition of Ya‘kibi’, is instructive. Ibn Shaddad has 
just noted the fact that both Ya‘kaibi and Ibn Haukal omit to men- 





1 Bibl. Geogr. Arab. VI, Trans., pp. 57, 58. 
2 Ibid. VII, 327, 18 ff.; 329, 2 ff. 
5 Loc. cit., pp. 327f., note e. 


122 George Dahl, 


tion Baniis, apparently because it had only recently been restored 
gee PED) 
and was only known as ‘‘modern” (&5dss); and'then proceeds: 


Laat Ridare Lely Line age cyst By coping cab pol Soe μὴ; 
«ΝΟΥ do Ibn Abi Ya‘kib (i. e. al-Ya‘kibi) and Ibn Haukal men- 
tion Haifa, presumably because it also was modern.” 

‘Athlit came into temporary prominence in the crusading period 
simply because of its very strong natural position. The Arab 
geographers before Yaktt do not mention it at all. As for Dor, it 
seems to have been nearly or quite deserted from the 7th century 
until after the third crusade (at least). Even Caesarea was 
reduced, during this same period, to a small and unimportant town. 
Thus Yakit* says of it that it had once been an important city; 
‘‘At present, however, it is not such, but is rather a village than a 


city: φρο Lgie xnath spills oy MAS cmmahs ΟἹ LA, . 





1TV, 214, lines 3-6, 


ee «(ὁ ὦ} 


THE VISITS OF THE CHEVALIER D’ARVIEUX. 


From about the year 1660 we have the reminiscences of a certain 
Chevalier d’Arvieux', who, in addition to looking after his own 
commercial interests, acted as a sort of French consul at Sidon’. 
On a trip from Sidon to Gaza, d’Arvieux stopped at Tartoura in 
order to arrange for permission for the Carmelite monks to return 
to their monastery on Mount Carmel. Having arranged this matter 
satisfactorily, he viewed the city. The translation of d’Arvieux’s 
version of this visit into quaint eighteenth-century German is as 
follows’: 


Man rechnet drei Meilen von dem Schlosse Pellegrin (=‘Athlit) 
nach Tartoura. Wir stigen daselbst bei einem griechischen Chris- 
tens, Namens Abou-Moussa, ab, und brachten die Nacht in einem 
Zimmer zu, wo wir gedachten, das uns die Flohe auffressen 
wiirden. Weil wir bei guter Zeit alda anlangten, so ging ich also- 
bald mit dem Herrn Souribe nach dem Feldlager des Emir Turabey, 
um die Wiedereinsetzung derer Carmeliterménche in ihr Kloster 
auf dem Berge Carmel zu vermitteln. Sie waren, durch die Ver- 
folgungen derer Araber, gendthiget gewesen, selbiges zu verlassen. 
Das Feldlager dieses Emirs war nur eine Viertelmeile von Tartoura 
entlegen. Wir wurden von diesem Fiirsten, der sehr ehrbar war, 
recht wol empfangen, und er willigte sehr héflich in unser Begeh- 
ren. Wir brachten den iahrlichen Tribut in Richtigkeit, welchen 
diese Ménche zu geben pflegten, und sie kehrten wieder in ihr 
Kloster zuriik. 

Hiernachst kehrten wir wieder nach Tartoura, und hatten noch 
Zeit genug iibrig, dasienige zu besehen, was in diesem kleinen 
Orte, der nur aus einer einzigem ziemlich grossen Strasse, die nach 
dem Meere hin gehet, angetroffen wird. Daselbst wird der Markt 





1 Born 1635, died 1702. 

> Memoires du Chevalier d’Arvieux, par C. R. P. Jean Baptiste Labat, 
Paris 1735, 6 vols. The only copy of this work in America is the one at 
Hamilton College, Clinton, N. Y. (so Meyer, Gaza, p. 105). This I have been 
unable to consult. 

3 Des Herrn von Arvieux .... merkwiirdige Nachrichten .... von 
dem Herrn Labat (Kopenhagen und Leipzig, bei Johann B. Ackermann, 
1754), Part 11, pp. 11-13. 


124 George Dahl, 


gehalten, wo die Araber ihre Riiubereien, und die da herum wohnen- 
den Bauren ihr Vieh & Friichte hinbringen, so sie gegen Reis & 
Leinwand vertauschen, welche die Egyptier in kleinen Fahrzeugen 
hinfiihren, weil der Hafen, oder eine Art von Hafen, der vor der 
Stadt ist, keine hinlingliche Tiefe hat, dass gréssere Fahrzeuge 
einlaufen kénnen. Die Einwohner haben keine Moscheen, sondern 
sie versamlen sich auf dem 6ffentlichen Platze, wo sie das Erdreich 
ohngefehr zwei Fus hoch erhédhet, und mit einer kleinen Mauer 
eingeschlossen haben. Alhier kommen sie in der Zeit ihrer Bet- 
stunden zusammen unter offenem Himmel. Ganz dicht darbei ist ein 
Kahue, welches das schénste Gebiude, und das am meisten daselbst 
besuchet wird. Der Name desselben zeuget zur Geniige von seiner 
Bestimmung. Jederman versamlet sich alda, Tabak zu rauchen, 
Kaffee zu trinken, und neue Zeitungen zu erzehlen oder zu héren. 

Tartoura wiirde Mangel an gutem Wasser zum Trinken haben, 
wenn es nicht eine kleine Quelle auf einem Felsen, zwei Ruthen 
in das Meer hinaus, hitte, die aber bei der geringsten Aufwallung 
des Meers mit Wellen iiberschlagen wird. Man trift zwar andere 
Quellen an verschiedenen Orten daherum an, sie sind aber salzigt, 
und es ist eben diese kleine Klippe, die vom Meergewisser umzingelt 
wird, deren man an diesem Orte so oft bendthiget ist. 

Die ganze, um diesen Ort hegende Gegend ist ziemlich unfrucht- 
bar, blos und ohne Biume. Das Erdreich traget nur Korn. Der 
Emir Turabey hat einen Pachter in Tartoura, der den Zoll, den 
Caffar, oder Wegezoll, nebst denen andern Abgaben eintreibet, die 
in diesem Flecken beim Ein=und Ausgang miissen entrichtet 
werden. Der Herrn Souribe hatte mit dem Abou-Moussa einige 
Geschifte abzuthun, welche uns fast den ganzen Vormittag des 
foloenden Tages aufhielten; also, dass wir erst nach einem des 
Mittags eingenommenen Friihstiicke uns auf den Weg nach Caisa- 
rea machten, welches nur vier Meilen davon entlegen ist. 


Again in 1664 d’Arvieux pays another visit to Tartoura. At 
this time the shipwreck of a Greek ship, with a wine-banquet of 
the native rulers following thereupon, furnishes our author with 
materials for a vivid picture of native manners and customs’: 

Tartoura ist ein kleiner unter die Herschaft des Emir Turabey 
gehdriger Hafen. Wir waren kaum daselbst angelanget, als bei 





1 Op. cit., Part III, pp. 75-82. 


History of Dor. 125 


dem ungestiimen Wetter ein grosses griechisches Fahrzeug auf 
denen Sandbiinken strandete. Es war mit cyprischem Weine und 
Kase beladen, und nach Egypten bestimt. Sobald es veste sas, 
ward es in wenig Minuten von denen Wellen zerschlagen, und die 
ganze Manschaft fliichtete ans Land. Der Kise blieb im Meere 
liegen, die Weinfisser aber rolten mit denen Wellen fort. Der 
Emir Dervik, welcher den Schifbruch von dem Gebirge herab gese- 
hen hatte, eilte mit einem Theile seiner Reuterei und einigen 
Bedienten des Grosemirs herbei, welche mit Pliinderung derer 
Matrosen und Reisenden den Anfang machten, und durch die 
Araber die zerscheiterten Stiike des Fahrzeuges, nebst allem, was 
das Meer landwirts trieb, herausziehen liessen. Als sich der 
Schiffer mit allen seinen Leuten nakend entkleidet sahe, verbargen 
sie sich im Gestriuche, und erwarteten der Nacht, um sich nach 
dem nichsten Dorfe zu begeben, damit sie etwas zu ihrer Bedekung 
bekommen kénten. Ich tréstete sie iiber ihren gehabten Verlust, 
und sagte ihnen, dass ich ein Christ sey, und bei denen Arabern in 
einigem Ansehen stiinde; daher wolte ich suchen, ihnen Dienste 
zu leisten. Sie waren sehr froh, dass sie mich angetroffen, und 
mich ihre Sprache, die gemeine griechische, reden hoérten. Ich 
that ihnen den Vorschlag, dass sie das, was aus dem Meere kénte 
gerettet werden, solten herausziehen helfen, so wolte ich machen, 
dass ihnen etwas wiedergegeben wiirde. Ich machte, das der 
Emir solches gut aufnahm, und mir versprach, sie zu befriedigen. 
Als sich nun diese armen Matrosen, die Gewaltsamkeit derer 
Wellen ohngeachtet, so die Kaufmansgiiter ans Land warfen, und 
nachher wieder in die weite See zuriik zogen, ins Meer geworfen 
hatten, retteten sie viele Sachen. Man konte das Zerschlagen 
derer Tonnen nicht verwehren; sie vermogten nur zwei davon zu 
retten, und die brachten sie mit vieler Miihe ans Land. Die 
Araber hatten einige Kise aufgefischet: da sagte ich im Scherz 
zu ihnen, sie wiiren aus Saumilch gemacht, alsobald warfen sie 
selbige hin, wuschen sich die Hinde, und die Griechen beniizten 
sich ihrer. Es fing an, spit zu werden, und das Meer war so 
ungestiim, dass die Matrosen nicht mehr arbeiten konten. Ich bat 
den Emir, ihnen ihre Kleider wiedergeben zu lassen. Er gab des- 
halb Befehl, und die Araber stelten ihnen den grésten Theil der- 
erselben wieder zu; weil der Emir aber in Tartoura unter Zelten 
schlafen wolte, die er hatte aufschlagen lassen, so machte ich ihnen 


126 George Dahl, 


Hofnung, noch etwas fiir sie zu erhalten: ich gab ihnen den Rath, 
zu warten, bis er zu Abends abgespeiset hiitte, damit sie ihn bei 
muntererm Gemiithe antreffen mégten. Der Emir befahl, dass 
man ihm die Abendmahlzeit zubereiten solte: nichts war seinen 
Bedienten leichter, denn alle in dem Dorfe befindliche Leute hatten 
ihm Geschenke von Fleisch, Vogelwild, Wildpret, Friichten und 
Kaffee gebracht, niemand aber hatte an Wein gedacht; ich fand 
zwei IKXriige voll bei einem Griechen des Dorfes, Namens Abou 
Moussa, welche ich dem Emir durch diese arme Matrosen tiber- 
reichen lies. Der Fiirst nahm sie mit Vergniigen an. Wir sezten 
uns an Tafel: ich gab denen Griechen ein Zeichen, sich aussen vor 
dem Zelte aufzuhalten und zu warten, bis ich sie hinein fiihren 
liesse; unterdessen wurde ihnen zu essen gereicht. 

Die Mahlzeit war gros, wihrete lange. Es waren viele Araber, 
die keinen Wein trunken, daher der Emir, ich, und vier bis fiinfe 
von seinen Bedienten genug daran hatten. Man trug die Schaalen 
in der Runde herum, man sang gut und schlecht, und dieser Land- 
zeitvertreib war vergniiglich. Nun glaubte ich, dass es gelegene 
Zeit sey, die Griechen herein kommen zu lassen; daher lies ich sie 
rufen; sie kamen Haufenweise herein, kiisten die Weste des Emirs, 
und begaben sich zur Seite. Der Fiirst frug mich, ob man ihnen nicht 
ihre Kleider wiedergegeben hitte, und ob sie noch sonst etwas ver- 
langten? Ich antwortete ihm: seine Befehle wiren sehr genau vol- 
zogen worden, weil aber diese armen Leute durch den Verlust ihres 
Fahrzeuges und ihrer Kaufmansgiiter zu Grunde gerichtet worden, 
so fleheten sie um die durch den Schifbruch zerscheiterten Sttike, 
so sie auffischen kénten, die nicht betrichtlich wiren, und ihnen 
doch dienen kénten, sich wieder nach ihrer Heimat zu begeben, 
und ihren elenden Familien unter die Arme zu greifen. Dieienigen 
aus der Geselschaft, welche daraus Nutzen zu ziehen wiinschten, 
sezten sich dagegen; der Emir aber bewilligte ihnen selbige, nach 
einiger Ueberlegung, und befahl auf der Stelle, dass man ihnen 
alles, bis auf einen Nagel, solte wegnehmen lassen. Mehr wurde 
darzu nich erfordert. Die Griechen kiisten ihm zur vélligen Dank- 
sagung den Saum der Weste, und machten sich alsobald fort, um 
an Auftischung dessen, was das Meer auf die Kiiste warf, zu arbei- 
ten, in der Hofnung, das iibrige des folgenden Tages zu verrich- 
ten; denn, weil der Wind gefallen war, so muste das Meer ruhiger 
werden, der Emir auch mit allen denen, die sie hitten verhindern 


koénnen, aufbrechen solte. 


History of Dor. 127 


Ich stund mit Anbruche des Tages auf, les zwei Schlitten 
machen, um die zwei Fasser Wein auf das Gebirge zu schaffen: vor 
einen ieden Schlitten lies ich drei Paar Ochsen spannen, und die 
Fasser wol bevestigen. sagte auch zum Emir, dass ich die Fort- 
schaffunge besorgen wolte, damit sich kein Zufal dabei ereignen 
méete. Ich nahm alle die Bauren, die ich darzu néthig zu seyn 
erachtete, und wir machten uns auf den Weg. Die Ochsen gingen 
so langsam, und unsere Bauren waren zu dergleichen Arbeit so 
wenig aufgelegt, dass wir erst um sechs Uhr des Abends in dem 
Lager des Emir Dervik anlangten. Der Emir war so vergniigt, 
seine zwei Tonnen gesund und wol behalten zu seinem Hoflager 
gebracht zu sehen, dass er denen Bauren grosmiithig fiir ihre Miihe 
eine Vergeltung gab, und augenbliks Boten an alle die Emirs 
abfertigte, von denen er wuste, dass sie sich tiber das Verbot des 
Weintrinkens kein grosses Gewissen machten, um ihnen zu _ berich- 
ten, dass er zwei grosse Tonnen davon in seiner Wohnung habe, 
und sie zur Theilnehmung daran einzuladen. Sie liessen ihm zurtik 
sagen, sie hiitten es schon erfahren und sich, ihn zu besuchen, auch 
die Nacht mit ihm in seinem Lager zuzubringen, angeschikt, daher 
moge er sich nur fertig machen sie wol zu empfangen, und herrlich 
zu bewirthen. 

Der Emir Dervik, als der iiingste von allen diesen Fiirsten, 
empfing diese Zeitung mit einer ungemeinen Freude. Er war iiber 
diese Gelegenheit erfreuet, ihnen Zeichen seiner Freundschaft zu 
geben. Daher stelte er Befehle zu einem Feste aus, und alsobald 
sahe man im ganzen Lager ein volkommenes Schlachten und Résten 
von Ochsen, Hameln, iungen Ziegen, Vogelwild und Wildpret. 
Viele Zelte waren mit Weibespersonen angefiillet, welche mit 
Zurichtung derer Suppen, gewiirzter Speisen, Bakwerk, Friichten 
und Zukergebakenem beschiftiget waren. Ich nahm die Aufsicht 
des Weins tiber mich, der nicht sonderlich klar war, diese Leute 
aber fragen wenig darnach. Es war fiirtreflicher cyprischer Wein. 
Ich lies die beiden Tonnen in das grosse Festgezelt an einem Orte 
hinlegen, wo sie niemanden im Wege waren. Ich stelte einen von 
meinen Leuten zu ieder Tonne, und als ich in meinem Schreibe- 
zeuge einige neue Federn fand, machte ich Kleine Rohren daraus, 
um den Wein abzuzapfen, und die Schaalen zu fiillen, welche von 
denen Bedienten rund herum denen Gisten zugebracht wurden. 
Ich wolte dem Emir zeigen, wie man bei denen Franzosen das 
Fleisch britet. In Ermangelung eines Bratspiesses, nahm einer 


128 George Dahl, 


von meinen Leuten eine alte Lanze, machte einen Handgrif daran, 
und stekte einen grossen Miirbebraten darauf, nebst einem Hamels- 
viertheil und Vogelwild, hes sie nach unserer Weise braten, und 
auftragen. Ich zerlegte diesen Braten und reichte ihn herum; und 
diese Fiirsten gestunden, dass unsere Weise, Fleisch zu braten, 
besser als die ihrige, sey, weil unser Fleisch seinen Saft behalt, da 
hingegen das ihrige troken, fast verbrant und unschmakhaft war. 
Wir hatten keine Flaschen, weil diese bei denen Arabern nicht 
gebriiuchlich sind, man schenkte aber die Schaalen wieder voll, ie 
nachdem sie ausgeleeret wurden, Alle eingeladene Emirs langten 
gisammen an, und nach denen Hoéflichkeitsbezeigungen, denen 
Umarmungen, dem Bart-und Hindekiissen, ie nachdem es der 
Gebrauch und die Wiirde derer Personen erforderte, sezte man 
sich auf Matten nieder. Die Emirs hatten samtene kiissen, die 
andern hatten keine, und sassen mit gekreuzten Fiissen, wie unsere 
Schneider. Nach einer ziemlich kurzen Unterredung legten die 
Eingeladene ihre grossen Schnupftiicher, die sie an statt derer 
Tellertiicher gebrauchten, vor sich, ihre Kleider zu verwahren, 
und man trug grosse kupferne verzinte Beken mit gebratenem, 
gekochtem Fleische und gewiirzten Speisen auf. Die Suppen 
waren iiberfliissig, und von verschiedenen Arten. Das hiernichst 
aufgesezte Bakwerk war wol gerathen. Der Braten, welcher zur 
lezten Tracht verwahret wurde, dienete zu Zwischengerichten, und 
man fand ihn gut. Hierauf kam die Frucht. Alle Giste speiseten 
mit grossem Appetite. Man trug neue Schiisseln auf, ie nachdem 
einige ausgeleeret waren, oder die Emirs selbige ihren Leuten 
geschikt hatten, welche Rottenweise geordnet waren, und mit eben 
so grossem Appetite, als ihre Herren, assen. Die Schaalen gingen 
rund herum, und der Wein verbreitete die Freude iiber alle 
Eingeladene. Die Schalmeien, Violinen, Trompeten und Trom- 
meln machten eine Musik, die man sehr weit héren konte. Sie 
spielten bisweilen besonders, und zuweilen alle mit einander. Thre 
schmachtende Stiikchen machten unsere Trinker ganz entztikt; sie 
sassen nachsinnend mit ihren Schaalen in denen Hiinden, weinten 
aus Zirtlichkeit, umarmten sich, kiisten einander den Bart, und 
gaben sich die ziirtlichsten Versicherungen von der Welt. Die 
Mahlzeit wiihrete so lange, dass man erst nach Mitternacht um drei 
Uhr von der Tafel aufstunde. Alsdenn legten sich dieienige, so 
des Schlafes bendthiget waren, auf Matratzen und Ktissen, womit 
die Matte, welche auf dem Fusboden lag, bedekt war. Die ersten, 


History of Dor. 129 


so des Morgens gegen zehen Uhr erwachten, riefen die andern. Ich 
rieth ihnen, Kaffee mit Milche zu trinken, den meine Leute zube- 
reiten musten, und hierdurch erwies ich ihnen einem Dienst, dessen 
sie héchlich bendthiget waren: denn die meisten hatten Kopf- 
schmerzen. Nach dem Kaffeetrinken und einem kurzen Spazirgange 
sezte man sich zur Tafel, und fing auf neue Unkosten wieder zu 
essen und zu trinken an; diese Uebung ward drittehalb Tage wie- 
derholet, nehmlich so lange, als der Wein wihrete, und da schieden 
sie, in Erwartung, dass anderer kommen solte, als die besten Freunde 
von der Welt auseinander. 

Bei diesem langen Feste bemerkte ich zwei Dinge, die mir Ver- 
gniigen erwekten. Erstlich, dass diese Leute, die gemeiniglich 
sehr misig leben, auch eine so grosse Beschwerlichkeit ertragen 
konten, als die bei diesem langen Gastmahle war, ohne dass man es 
an ihnen durch die Zeichen abnehmen konte, die gemeiniglich der 
Schwelgerei folgen. Zweitens, dass unter so vielen Leuten, die 
diese lange Mahlzeit hindurch iiberfltissig Wein trunken, sich nicht 
die geringste Unordnung fusserte: man hérte nicht das geringste 
Stichelwort, noch den geringsten Vorwurf. Hingegen blieben sie 
in ihrer Ernsthaftigkeit, und der Wein machte sie nur ein wenig 
munterer, lustiger, zwar ein wenig freier, aber ohne die Schranken 
der Hoflichkeit, des ganzen Wolstandes und der Achtung, die sie 
einander schuldig waren, zu iiberschreiten; daher sie mit tausend 
derer zirtlichsten Freundschaftsbezeugungen und allen Hoéflich- 
keiten, die man von Leuten ihres Standes erwarten konte, von 
einander schieden. 


LATER VISITORS AT DOR. 


After the Chevalier V Arvieux, the first explorer to visit Tantira 
whose writings we possess was Richard Pococke’. In the year 
1737, accompanied by a retinue sent along with him by the sheik 
at ‘Athlit, Pococke reached ‘‘Tortura.” This he describes as a 
small village with a port to the south into which large boats are 
sometimes forced to put by stress of weather; on such occasions 
passengers are forced to pay a tax of nine shillings a head. The 
sheik at, Tanttira received him and his companions with great civility. 
Having visited Caesarea, Pococke on his return travelled along the 
road a half mile to the east of Tantira intending to pass by it. 
The sheik, however, sent some of his people in pursuit of Pococke 
with an urgent invitation to dine with him. For fear of giving 
offense, Pococke returned and accepted his invitation. 

On the 14th of January, 1816, ‘‘'Tartoura” was visited by J. 5. 
Buckingham*. At that time there were forty or fifty dwellings 
and perhaps 500 Mohammedan inhabitants in the town. Bucking- 
ham cites Father Julio of Mt. Carmel as authority for the state- 
ment that the ruined tower at Tantira was for some unknown 
reason called by the Franks the ‘‘Accursed Tower.” The Arabs, 
he says, called it merely ‘‘ Khallat-el-Ateek” (the Old Castle). 
During supper he was in characteristic fashion questioned as to his 
destination and business by the elders of the village. ‘‘ They 
eagerly inquired after Bonaparte, whom they all knew”®*. On 
awaking the following morning Buckingham discovered that all 
the remaining provisions had been stolen from the baskets during 
the night. 

Irby and Mangles* passed through ‘‘'Tortura ” on October 15th, 
1817. They characterize the extensive ruins here as possessing 
nothing of interest. 





1A Description of the East and Some Other Countries (London, 1745), I, 
p. 97. 

2 Travels in Pulestine, etc. (London, 1822), p. 128. 

’ Napoleon passed along the shore road on his way to the disastrous engage- 


ment at Acre. 
+ Travels in Egypt and Nubia, Syria and the Holy Land (1844), p. 59. 


History of Dor. 131 


In the month of May, 1843, John Wilson’ found a ‘‘ few 
wretched houses” at Tanturah. 

C. W. M. van de Velde’ visited Tantira in 1851. He calls par- 
ticular attention to the ridge of rock east of Dor, which served as 
a protection against attack from that direction. The outrageous 
prices charged by the natives created considerable difficulty, until 
Dr. Kalley (van de Velde’s companion) packed up his medicine 
bag with a threat to treat no more patients. The inhabitants then 
became open to reason. 

The first thorough-going description of the ruins at Dor was that 
of (Hugo) Victor Guérin*®, who visited and described the site in 
1870. The results of his observations have been employed in the 
chapter above on the ‘‘ Topography of Dor.” At the time of 
Guérin’s visit ‘‘Tantoura” possessed two mosques’, one of them 
partially demolished. 

Still more thorough and complete was the survey made by the 
Palestine Exploration Fund® on the 8th of March, 1873. The 
accurate maps, plans, pictures and descriptions issued by the Fund 
constitute our principal authority for the description of the ruins 
at Dor. Additions to the information contained in this report have 
appeared in the Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly’. 

Tantira lies off the usual tourist routes near unhealthful swamps, 
and is therefore seldom visited. Beside a few illustrations accom- 
panying some of the descriptions mentioned above’, it has been 
impossible to obtain satisfactory pictures of the site. A renewed 
examination of the ruins would doubtless yield interesting addi- 
tions to our information concerning ancient and mediaeval Dor. 
It is to be hoped that such an examination will be made before all 
the material has been removed or destroyed. 





1. The Lands of the Bible Visited and Described (Kdinburgh 1857), IT, p. 249. 
> Narrative of a Journey through Syria and Palestine in 1851 and 1852 
(Edinb. and London, 1854), I, p. 999. 

3 Description de la Palestine, 11 Partie—Samarie—(Paris, 1874-75), 2: 305 f. 

4 When Buckingham (see aboye) visited Tanttira in 1816 the town was without 
a mosque. 

> Survey of Western Palestine, Memoirs of the Topography, etc. (London, 
1881-83), II, pp. 3 ff. 

61887, p. 181; 1895, p. 113 (Reports by Dr. G. Schumacher). 

19. W. P. Mem. Il, pp. 10 ff.; P.H.F.Q., (1887), p. 84; Wilson, Pict. Pal., 
III, p. 105. 









THE TUTTLE, MOREHOUSE ἃ TAYLOR CO 

















Δ. 








SEARCH INSTITUTE 


Ἵ11}}} ANU 





Pa ek ae, 


et np = 
Wo bride Meee ao 
Sree Py Sea 





